Lets debate the pros and cons of Wound/Vitality-points vs. Massive-Dmg-Threshold

[Turanil]

Well, I have played far too little with both systems to decide which one is the best, easiest, faster to play, etc. In any case, what seems obvious, is that both systems are designed to make firearms combat "more realistic" in that a single firearm shot may kill with any of the two systems (I mean, where PCs and NPCs with lots of hit-points are considered), while it can't with D&D rules.

Vitality / Wound Hit-Point system (Star-Wars, UA)
- You get your Con score in Wound Points. Then, you roll hit-points normally at each level (as in any d20 game), but they are considered Vitality Points. Then, when the character reaches 0 VP, he takes damage on his WP which also gives hindrances (because character is "really wounded").
- When a character is attacked by a critical hit, he immediately loses all VP and is wounded on his WP.

Massive-Damage-Threshold Hit-Point system (d20 Modern)
- Characters roll hit-points normally. They have MAS = Con score (plus any relevant bonus). When a single attack makes damage higher than MAS, the character makes a Fort save DC=15 or falls at -1 hit-point.

So, I would like to hear your experiences with any system. Which one makes a game more deadly to the characters? Which one is the easiest to keep track of, fastest to play with?

Thanks.

 

[Turanil]

Personally, I would say that the Wound/Vitality Points system is better. That is: even weak NPCs with a small weapon have a chance to be deadly, and it's easier to track of: critical simply means your fall at 0 VP and are wounded.

On the other hand, with MAS system you must keep track of everyone MAS value (players can cheat), then with all the bonuses that can be added to improve it, only the biggest weapons can really hurt. Then you must roll saving throws, and high level characters are likely to succeed them often. There is of course a potential for more attacks that could score a deadly hit, but it implies rolling the dice more often.

All in all, Wound/Vitality Points system seems to be easier to use. Any comments?

 

[Aaron2]

I have several thoughts on this.

First, the idea that criticals bypass Vitality is not set in stone. In a more action oriented campaign, you may can adjust this to suit the genere. For example, maybe critials do normal damage to Wounds while the extra critical damage (using D&D's crit multiplier) comes from Vitality. There's plenty of wiggle room in the concept.

Second, my main problem with Wound points is that it makes weaker monsters significantly tougher to kill by giving them, on average, 10 extra hit points. The difference between a 2 hp kobold and a 8 hp orc become less significant. This reduces the lethality of weapons which is one of the points of W/V to begin with. A gun that does 2d10 is deadly to a 5 hp monster but much less so to a monster with 5 vit and 12 wound points.

Finally, my main beef with massive damage is that its too hard to remember in the heat of combat. Plus it seem kinda kludgy to me. I'd just as soon go with a M&M type damage roll.


Aaron

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

A lot depends on how you handle armor, too.

I prefer WP/VP type things as long as the WPs are low. After you get high enough in level to have tons of VPs, combat devolves to 'who crits first'. Still deadlier than stock d20, but still no where near good enough for me when firearms are involved.

MDT is really not that hard to remember to use once you've gone through a couple combats. And thanks to Wulf's 'skulls', it's got pre-defined levels o' deadliness built in. In a firearms campaign, I'd leave it at '10', but even if you use one of the other settings, it's a pre-calculated DC, so it's not that big a deal to keep track of.

With MDT, every shot is potentially incapacitating, and crits are still dangerous, but you don't have combats devolve into dozens of rounds of guys plinking away at each other till one crits. Each shot could potentially end things, so there is some incentive to keep your head down.

Still, I don't think either one is really deadly enough for 'realistic' gunfights. But they are nice for settings where you want a more heroic feel.

 

[Turanil]

Mmmmh... your comments are interesting. I will have to think more about it. So VP/WP seems to be less attractive finally.

I'd just as soon go with a M&M type damage roll.

What's that? I know it's different, but how that works?

 

[0-hr]

In something like M&M, each time you are hit you basically make a damage save vs the damage done. If you fail by a certain amount, then you are wounded. Fail by more and your are knocked out, dead, etc..

Each time you are wounded you take a cumulative penalty to future saves, so eventually you are going to fail and go down. You don't have any hit points, and characters often die with a surprised look on their face.

For myself, I really like WP/VP more - especially because it lets you heal up VP fast (by just resting) while making actual wounds very serious (requiring surgery etc.). When combined with a crit system that goes "straight to WP", it also helps keep high level characters at least a little fearful of combat. That, in my opinion, is a good thing.

 

[Pbartender]

I've become rather fond of the Skull & Bones method. It's similar to WP/VP, but different, and easier to convert from standard D&D.

You still have hit points, but they heal fast... Real fast... by the minute fast. On the other hand, once your hit points are gone, you take Con damage. When your Con reaches 0, you die. Criticals can go straight to Con, or not, depending on which you prefer.

 

[Vigilance]

Massive Damage is a far more elegant rule imo.

You have to keep track of the same value in both systems (a character WP and his massive damage threshold are both his Con, so in both systems the GM needs to be aware of a character's Con).

I like MDT because it does not add a new value into the game that players need to keep track of. I use a cheat sheet that tells me each player's current HP, Init modifier, attack bonus, listen/spot skills (for surprise) and MDT. It's not that hard to make such a cheat sheet on a computer and just print them when you game.

In my experience WP make the game too deadly, and games are frequently interrupted by surprise criticals that send players running for cover. A MDT save is just as deadly when failed, but it happens a little less often and so it changes the game a little less.

So in conclusion I like both systems, but prefer MDT just a little more.

Chuck

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I, too, am a fan of the MAS system. *shrug* Part of it is transparency to the system. That's a big one for me. There's no converting, moving, adjusting, or reworking things. I can pull a monster from the MM, the Menace Manual, a web source, an adventure somebody wrote ... I can pull together things from any d20 source, really, because the systems are based on the same mechanic.

That's only part of it. I think MAS is faster, really, and more deadly than WP/VP. For instance, I recently had my first PROBLEM with MAS based games because my supers had no real way to heal damage after battles and were getting beat down pretty badly. VP heals at a faster rate, so it might have been a better system in that instance.

(( Instead I used Grim Tales "Fewer Dead Heroes" and transform their Armor Bonus in damage to subdual. ))

As far as characters eventually always making MAS saves and seldom HAVING to make MAS saves (because of big con or Increased Massive Damage Threshold) I added two house rules:

1: MAS DC = 10 + 1/2 Damage Dealt

That increases the MAS DC as damage goes up. An average Con (10) will have to save on a 10hp attack at the average DC (15). Big Con guys will still be threatened if something does enough damage to force a save.

2: All Crits force a MAS save, regardless of damage. Thus a 2d4 .22 pistol may still seldom force a MAS save, but on a crit that only does 8 points they'll still have to save at DC 14.

Together the lethality is increased quite a bit. But we're playing a dark horror/conspiracy sort of game (Dark*Matter) where I use them.

They fought some possessed maniacs last night ... one of which had a chainsaw.

THAT scared them.

Ahhh, Halloween. How I love thee.

--fje

 

[Ranger REG]

Vitality / Wound Hit-Point system (Star-Wars, UA)
- You get your Con score in Wound Points. Then, you roll hit-points normally at each level (as in any d20 game), but they are considered Vitality Points. Then, when the character reaches 0 VP, he takes damage on his WP which also gives hindrances (because character is "really wounded").
- When a character is attacked by a critical hit, he immediately loses all VP and is wounded on his WP.

Actually, you don't lose your VP when you suffer a successful critical hit. Damage bypass VP and applied to WP. In addition, when you take damage to WP, you begin to suffer a fatigued condition. The condition remains until you can heal the WP in one day (usually through magical or mystical healing), or you spend 8 consecutive hours of bed rest.

Massive-Damage-Threshold Hit-Point system (d20 Modern)
- Characters roll hit-points normally. They have MAS = Con score (plus any relevant bonus). When a single attack makes damage higher than MAS, the character makes a Fort save DC=15 or falls at -1 hit-point.

So, I would like to hear your experiences with any system. Which one makes a game more deadly to the characters? Which one is the easiest to keep track of, fastest to play with?

Deadly? Assuming you do not use Action Point or Force Point, MDT. It doesn't matter if you crit or not, as long as damage beats your MDT, it forces you to make a saving throw, and you can always fail a natural 1.