Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RangerWickett" data-source="post: 2675872" data-attributes="member: 63">As I answer these issues, understand that I'm planning this system to work with a version of d20, but not to integrate into current D&D. The way creatures would be statted and spells designed would especially need to be changed. It would be a big overhaul. But it's an interesting thought experiment, so I'll keep working at it for a bit.Having size always be positive will not work. Why is it easier for a halfling to hit a human, and a troll to hit a human? Why are medium sized creatures the whipping boy of D&D? No, I stand firmly by the 'bigger is better' rule. Otherwise, we'd have to completely remove size from the equation, which ends up causing problems elsewhere. It should simply be harder to hurt big creatures.Note that in this revised system, creatures would not automatically get natural armor bonuses just because. A cow would have natural armor +2. A rhino might have +6. A dragon would probably have +9, just above plate armor. But there'd be almost no need to go higher than that.Seeing as there's no HP, Toughness (if it still exists as a feat at all) would need to grant bonus Wounds. I think multiplying Con by a size modifier is clunky. My idea for Wound Points is that they represent physical size, body mass, and how much it takes to kill you, ignoring skill entirely. Your Defense (and ability to avoid taking 'Hits') is your skill at surviving in combat. If someone drops an anvil on you in your sleep, though, it will just go straight to your Wounds.I dunno. I kinda want to avoid having multiplication be involved with determining wound points. Have you ever tried figuring out dragon hit points? Its tedious. "Okay . . . 24d12 . . . and his Con is 32, so that's an extra 11 x 24 . . . so 264 from Con and . . . 166 from hit dice . . . is 430."  Having a flat rating, based on size, with perhaps a simple bonus/penalty from Con, would be easier.I think you're removing the elegance of the system. If I can, I want you to only have to track 4 numbers.Defense.Attack bonus.Number of hits.Wound points.Adding extra hits if you take extra wounds . . . I think we can collapse it all down to fewer scores, for easier calculation. Since any actual wound will also include an accompanying hit, I don't think you need to have high-damage wounds have multiple hits.A high roll deals more damage. A nat 20 is cool because it deals a lot of damage. You don't need to have it do anything more (though it would be fair to keep the 'nat 20 is automatically a hit' rule, so that if you have a hundred guys assail a dragon they'll wear it down even if they can't get through its armor).I was just thinking of a possibility. It certainly should be an option. Note that it's much harder to unbalance than it is to simply hit and try to do damage, because you don't add your weapon's damage rating to your roll. I like the concept of being able to take someone out by outfighting them: you put them into a bad position, and you then can take them down. Perhaps unbalance should only last for a round.The point of the system is to have static wound points, instead of hit points that rise based on your level. Your defense is what keeps you from taking damage. A skilled adventurer is harder to hurt, but once he's hurt, he's just as vulnerable as any man. (Well, with a little bit of wiggle room for acts of heroism and such.) In this system, the WP are easy to visualize, easier than HP in D&D.In D&D, a sword hits for 20 damage, but you've still got HP, so you're fine.In this system, a sword either nearly hits you so you're easier to take out next round, or it hits for a few points of damage, but you're seriously wounded.Well, for one, I've figured out how to handle spells, landslides, and other hazards that involve saves. Very quickly, because it's late, it goes like this.Each attack spell has a damage rating. Fireball might have a damage rating of 5 (for example; the real number would need to be tweaked). A wizard (16 Intelligence) casts fireball at you, and you make a Reflex save. There are two DCs.Touch DC - 10 + spell level + wizard's Intelligence bonus. (16)Evade DC - 10 + spell level + Intelligence bonus + damage rating. (21)If you meet the Evade DC, you take no damage. If you meet the Touch DC, but not evade, you just take 1 touch. And if you fail to meet the Touch DC, you take 1 hit and 1 wound, plus an additional wound for every point you failed by. Natural hazards would work similarly, but would be prestatted. A small rockslide? Touch DC 12, Evade DC 16. The numbers would of course be tweaked, but I think that's a good basis. Heck, even mental attacks could work similarly. . . . Give characters 'mental wound points,' and when you mind blast someone, you might stun them, or you might just lower their attack and defense. That's certainly more fun from a gameplay standpoint than 'save or be out of combat' spells like hold person.Round-Up:So basically, in this system, we have simplified combat that can be resolved a couple ways. One way is to wear your opponent down with weak hits that lower his defenses, and then cut him down. Another is to try to throw him off balance and then deliver a fierce blow. You can try to hit him with magic. Some spells might have high damage ratings, others might be harder to dodge but deal less damage.Does this seem like a good basis from which to develop a system? Because this is not something you could shoe-horn into D&D. You'd have to build D&D-v.4 from the ground up.</blockquote>

Verification