Making combat (far) more deadly

[Kzach]

This is a system I just literally thought up right this second so forgive me if it has holes, as it most likely will, but it's something that could easily be refined with some discussion here.

Hit points are done away with, entirely.

Instead, you have 'hits'.

Minions can take one 'hit'.

Standard monsters can take two 'hits'.

Elites can take four hits.

And solos can take six hits.

PC's can generally take four hits as a base (plus one per tier, thus 5 at 1st-level) however Toughness can increase this by one hit per tier and each tier brings a bonus hit. Toughness now has three levels, one applying to each tier and each feat being a prerequisite for the next higher tier feat.

There is no longer any such thing as 'damage on a miss'. You either hit or you miss. Yes, this will break many feats... too bad. Don't like it, don't use a system looking to be grittier and more deadly

Healing surges now cure 'hits'. Instead of curing more damage, a healer's bonus healing such as that from Healer's Lore, simply cures an extra hit. Elite's have one healing surge they can spend in a combat, and solos have two.

Critical hits deal two 'hits' worth of damage.

Any monster or character that has been hit, is considered 'bloodied'.

Also, a coup de grace can outright kill any character or monster if it hits, regardless of how many more 'hits' the monster or character can take. In addition, the circumstances for coup de grace are widened. Someone with a crossbow stuck up against your skull would qualify for a coup de grace if they hit, same as if someone has one pointed at your chest and is a marksman. Doesn't matter what level you are, a crossbow bolt through your skull or heart is going to kill you.

When a monster reaches 0 hits, they're dead. When a PC reaches 0 hits, they make Survival Checks. A Survival Check is a Death Save modified by your Constitution modifier.

Whattya think?

 

[shamsael]

This is a system I just literally thought up right this second so forgive me if it has holes, as it most likely will, but it's something that could easily be refined with some discussion here.

Hit points are done away with, entirely.

Instead, you have 'hits'.

Minions can take one 'hit'.

Standard monsters can take two 'hits'.

Elites can take four hits.

And solos can take six hits.

PC's can generally take four hits as a base (plus one per tier, thus 5 at 1st-level) however Toughness can increase this by one hit per tier and each tier brings a bonus hit. Toughness now has three levels, one applying to each tier and each feat being a prerequisite for the next higher tier feat.

There is no longer any such thing as 'damage on a miss'. You either hit or you miss. Yes, this will break many feats... too bad. Don't like it, don't use a system looking to be grittier and more deadly

Healing surges now cure 'hits'. Instead of curing more damage, a healer's bonus healing such as that from Healer's Lore, simply cures an extra hit. Elite's have one healing surge they can spend in a combat, and solos have two.

Critical hits deal two 'hits' worth of damage.

Any monster or character that has been hit, is considered 'bloodied'.

Also, a coup de grace can outright kill any character or monster if it hits, regardless of how many more 'hits' the monster or character can take. In addition, the circumstances for coup de grace are widened. Someone with a crossbow stuck up against your skull would qualify for a coup de grace if they hit, same as if someone has one pointed at your chest and is a marksman. Doesn't matter what level you are, a crossbow bolt through your skull or heart is going to kill you.

Whattya think?

Under this system, Non-minions are too weak (or perhaps minions are too strong).

I would give PCs 3, 4, or 5, based on their role. 3 for controllers, 4 for strikers and leaders, 5 for defenders. Maybe a +1 bonus for primal controllers, strikers and defenders.

For monsters, I would either do 4 per monster, or split it up by role as with PCs. 8 for elites (or role +4) and 16 for solos (or role +8).

I would also have crits, high-crits, sneak attacks, warlock curses, ranger quarries, etc, count for an extra hit.

 

[Kzach]

Addition:

You can't coup de grace in combat.

Having the 'Aim' condition is like having a mark against you. If someone is 'Aiming' at you, then they can perform a coup de grace as an immediate interrupt. You can only place an 'Aim' on someone if you are out of combat and have a tactical advantage, like already having your weapon drawn and pointing at their throat.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

How do you want to handle different weapons? With so few hit points, scaling the weapon's damaging effect might become an issue.

 

[Kzach]

How do you want to handle different weapons? With so few hit points, scaling the weapon's damaging effect might become an issue.

I wouldn't.

If you're really wanting realism, I don't think any amount of tweaking D&D will fix it. There are other systems that do it better.

My purpose in posting this was to provide a very simple system that made combat far more deadly and dangerous. Partly this also makes it a bit more realistic, however at the end of the day, it's nowhere near real.

In reality, though, a two-inch long bladed pen knife is just as deadly as a six foot long sword. Get hit with either and without immediate medical attention, you're probably going to die.

Weapons didn't become longer and bigger to become more deadly, it simply isn't necessary, we're very fragile. Crack a skull with a 1kg hammer head is just as deadly as swinging a 10kg one. So why carry all that weight? Historically, maces were pretty small and were mostly used from horseback, because the force behind a horse-driven blow was enough to kill anyone in a single hit. Lances weren't about single-kills, they were about driving a stake through a shield wall and killing a dozen people behind it. Bigger swords and polearms came about as means to get around defences and mostly armour.

So if I was to do anything, it would be to flip the bonuses to hit. I'd go from +1 to +3. Daggers and other light weapons would have a +1 whereas claymores and the like would get a +3. In a system like this the amount of damage done becomes almost irrelevant, it's about whether or not an attack hits, and the fact is a dagger is less likely to damage someone than a greatsword is, especially when armour is taken into account, but also to some extent dodging a dagger is easier than dodging a greatsword, no matter what the movies tell you.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It seems to me that this approach would favor defense over offense. There isn't much reason to play a fullblade wielding greatweapon fighter if a plate mail and shield using fighter with a longsword is just as effective offensively but significantly better defensively.

Also, where do strikers fit in? Half their schtick is dealing high damage. If every attack from a striker counts as two hits, they're probably a bit on the strong side. If most attacks from them only count as one hit, you're probably better off playing any other role (since good mobility isn't really equivalent to good control or the ability to heal).

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I wouldn't.

If you're really wanting realism, I don't think any amount of tweaking D&D will fix it. There are other systems that do it better.

My purpose in posting this was to provide a very simple system that made combat far more deadly and dangerous. Partly this also makes it a bit more realistic, however at the end of the day, it's nowhere near real.

What!? You want to sacrifice basic tenets of D&D? That a bigger sword is a better sword? *shudder*

Sorry, I just assumed that you want to keep the changes to a minimum and maintain as much as possible of the original system.

 

[Rel]

What!? You want to sacrifice basic tenets of D&D? That a bigger sword is a better sword? *shudder*

Sorry, I just assumed that you want to keep the changes to a minimum and maintain as much as possible of the original system.

Emphasis mine. Did you know that in OD&D and Basic D&D, all weapons did 1d6 damage? So a bigger sword was not a better sword.

As for the concept presented in this thread, I'm fine with it in theory but if you are going to change stuff this radically then I don't see much use in still using D&D. The granularity of what you are proposing is about the same as Old School Hack. But it doesn't have all the baggage that 4e does in terms of feats or powers that are scaled based on the damage they do.

I guess I don't see the benefit of adding this kludge onto 4e when there are systems built from the ground up to get the same effect.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Emphasis mine. Did you know that in OD&D and Basic D&D, all weapons did 1d6 damage? So a bigger sword was not a better sword.

Oh yes, I know. Reading this in my old Basic Set was basically what prompted me to order AD&D before playing D&D once.

 

[darkwing]

You might like the board game Castle Ravenloft. They do the simple hitpoint thing very similar to your proposal.