races & hp; what do people think of a more...well, real/logical approach to HP?

[StarFyre]

Just wondering, a coworker and I were discussing and it appeared to us, that HP in general should be based more on race than class?

we think that makes sense (example to follow) but what do others think?

here was our reasoning: (kinda extreme case but it gets point across)

race/species: blue whale vs human

one bullet or arrow has a potential (non head/heart shot) to kill a human. the same shot, has almost no chance to kill a blue whale (note: please no arguments on nuclear detonating bullets that the US gov't may or may not be wasting money on or some other stupid new type of weapon argument! )

let's attribute this to the con, str, general hp (there are other factors, but would these not be part of it)

now, lets say, somehow the whale became a wizard! if it is so tough; and as it grows, it get tougher, why would it being 'taught' something, make it weaker? (Let's say dropping it's HD from 3d10/level example, to 1d4? )

Would the following make more sense? i'm wondering if we should do this for my campaign as a house rule, if 4E makes no changes to HP progression.

example (based on race and con):

gnome/halfling: 1d4 (maybe 1d6?)
elf: 1d6 (maybe 1d4+1?)
human: 1d8
dwarf: 1d12
half-orc: 1d10
minotaur: 2d8 or 2d10?
etc

con adjustments: con gives current bonus hp HOWEVER, for every 5 pts above 10, increase the dice category for the race..so 1d6 elf goes to 1d8 IF it had 15 con+, goes to 1d10 if 20 con+
a dwarf would go to 2d8, etc...

finally, class bonus. here, how a class makes a true difference. a warrior trains via more physical exercise (ie. workout, combat, exercise, etc)..these aspects would raise overall str/toughness, so char stats go up over time (thus, by default, causing HP adjustments above)

I know this takes longer and yields higher hp for PCs and monsters, but in terms of initial concept, is it sound?

Sanjay

 

[Shieldhaven]

Farscape d20 did something like this. The main problem that jumps out at me is that some races become, um, playable, and others not. If you're trying to decide whether to play an elf fighter or a dwarf fighter, current rules create a difference of 40 hit points over 20 levels. These rules would create an average difference of 60 hit points over 20 levels.

Basically, class rather than race determines your role in the party, which dictates in turn how badly you need hit points on a round-by-round basis. If your dwarf wizard has substantially more hit points than this halfling fighter, well, that halfling fighter just made a bad decision and should go do something else with his life. "Living traffic cone" comes to mind.

Haven

 

[Abstraction]

uh...hell no

 

[theredrobedwizard]

That blue whale has at least 12d8 hit dice (well, that's the Cachalot whale, a blue is actually bigger). Adding a level of Wizard would give it +1d4+Con Mod HP.

Why didn't it gain the full d8+Con Mod for being an Animal? It was too busy learning to read.

If, in some strange world, a baby blue whale was abducted at birth and forced to learn the skills of Wizardry (I'm assuming Aboleths are at work here), it'd still get its obscene Con Mod applied to its anemic Wizard HD. By the time it got to 12th level, it'd have about 100 HP on average; give or take a few.

Also, such a whale could cast lots of neato spells.

So race *does* factor into HP. That's why big, tough things have a lot of Constitution.

-TRRW

 

[Goken100]

The reason HP aren't logical is that the represent defensive ability in addition to how much meat there is on your bones. So more skilled defenders get more HP. Thus, tied to class.

Hopefully some day HP will be based entirely on sensible things like Strength and Constitution, and class and level will only effect defensive scores. But it is not this day.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Expect to see all-dwarf, all-wizard parties if you adopt this rule.

 

[Gold Roger]

Honestly? I hate it. It reduces playability and I down see much of a realism/logic improvement.

Besides, messing with HP is among the points where I will scream "That's not D&D anymore" (amog with the removal of class/race, the introduction of DR armor in favor of AC, the idea of killing monsters and taking their stuff and the removal of the dungeon as viable adventure).

 

[howandwhy99]

Folks began removing Hit Points from D&D a few minutes after they found the game. It's not a new idea.

But it is one of the most hugely successful ideas created with D&D. Point based "health meters" are just simple and easy to understand.

If you want more description, house rule it.

(In fact, I wish they'd leave option-only in for more elements of the game)

 

[Clavis]

Hit points do not directly represent toughness.

They represent how hard it is to kill something. Something can be hard to kill or a lot of reasons. A large, resilient body is one. Fighting skill, luck, the favor of the Gods, and destiny are others. High HPs replicate the hero making it to the end of the novel, or the last reel, alive. They do not simulate reality well at all, and were never meant to. D&D was never meant as a simulation game.

One of the reasons I don't like things like Action Points, for example, is because HPs already represent the action of luck and fate in a character's career. A high-level figher cannot take multiple sword thrusts to the chest. Rather, the 1-8 points of damage he takes form a sword represent the fact that had he been an ordinary Joe, the sword thrust would have hit him and killed him. Of course, the hero is not ordinary, so he moves out of the way just in time, maybe taking a bruise or nick at most. Of course, he'll run out of luck eventually...

 

[Dagredhel]

I think most of us "get" the idea that hit points supposedly represent an abstract, catch-all measure of how long a character (or creature) can remain in a fight. (It's not how much punishment he can take before he dies, though; it's how much he can take and keep on fighting back.)

Granted, this is counterintuitive for a lot of folks. They think of hit points as a more direct measure of physical hardiness. The facts that you get a CON bonus and that physically-oreinted warrior-types get more hit points than your brainy wizard-types plays into this, too (in a big way.) So there is definitely an easily understandable tendency to view hit points as something more akin to the BODY attribute in the Hero System despite the explicit explanation to the contrary.

What fewer folks take into account is a basic underlying characteristic of the d20 system that really does make it absolutely necessary (IMHO) for hit points to remain abstract.

It's the fact that a natural 20 always hits.

In heroic fiction, characters (unarmored characters at that) can get through a dozen fights with nary a scratch. Not so, in a rules system where you're going to get hit at least 5% of the time.

So for the game to remain true to heroic fantasy, you really do need some of those "hits" to represent near-misses, fatigue, or "flesh wounds".