Killing The Sacred Cow: Exchanging the Abstraction of Hit Points for New Mechanics


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I suppose if he really wanted he could do something similar to Shadowrun's damage mitigation and use fortitude as the base as he suggested. But the scaling on that is going to be insane and even in the base system it didn't work well (its not even all that unfeasible to take hits from the cannons on futuristic battle ships and stay standing).

If you put in dodge mechanics then sooner or later dodge is gonna fail and it will be instadeath.

If you put in damage mitigation mechanics then the system can be gamed and you're left with invincible characters, the very thing you were trying to get rid of in the first place.

Honestly if you're dead set on this try looking at runequest. Aiming for different body parts meant penalties to hit, but the smaller body parts had different hp and different penalties associated with them.

Grand Lodge

Aelryinth wrote:
There was actually a game where they gave illustrations of high/low str/con mixes.

These are exactly the kind of obscure, ultra-rare anecdotes that I was talking about. They don't justify a needlessly broad array of attributes. Let's go crazy with it for a second:

For every high str/low con (or vise versa) example you can think of, I can name just as many or more examples of characters (real or fictional) that have super high agility, but low hand-eye coordination (or the other way around). Most brain surgeons can't do cartwheels, and most Olympic gymnasts can't juggle knives, yet dexterity remains the combination of both traits.

Then we move on to the stark difference between physical attractiveness and genuine charm, two traits that actually rarely coincide, yet they're both lumped into charisma. Now boggle when you realize that that contradiction is also smashed together with leadership. Let's start a list of famous generals throughout history that were also supermodels; it won't take long.

And as for that marathon runner you gave as an example? The skinny guy who can run all day? You think that means his constitution (in Pathfinder terminology) is 18? I'll bet he goes down after one solid punch (like most of us would), so that example goes out the window. Turns out that stamina and durability are very different traits, so why hang the both under constitution?

As for slowing down combat, I think it's worth it to add some really visceral moments. Taking an arrow to the arm, hitting a troll square in the head, knowing that a spike trap disabled one of your legs... those help put you in the moment. If the time it takes to roll on hit location charts can be "paid for" by removing other boring parts of combat, all the better!


Changing the basic stats the characters are based on is going to cause even more problems than getting rid of HP. This is sounding less and less worth the hassle every post.

Grand Lodge

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
the scaling on that is going to be insane

Let's be honest: The scaling in Pathfinder isn't exactly perfect as it is. High level spells (or martial iterative attacks) can already end epic battles in one turn, so what's the difference if they still do it in an alternate hit point system?


On the topic of AC vs Hitpoints vs Reflex Saves vs Fort Saves protecting your from damage:

As someone with a tertiary knowledge of how Warhammer 40k/Fantasy works, there has always been one thing that I really liked about the way those systems handled melee combat. Specfically: How skilled you are with a weapon determines how hard it is for you to be hit. How much armor or toughness you have determines how much damage you take.

Now, i am personally not a fan of Armor as DR rules changes in 3rd edition or Pathfinder, but mostly because I find that the math doesn't really work out or there are some dumb fiddly bits. I.E. Magic weapon letting a character bypass all the DR from mundane armor in the Pathfinder rules. However, I really like the idea that, essentially, the higher a character's base attack bonus, the harder they are to hit. I'm not necessarily advocating for an active-defense style game either.

I would just like to see a characters ability to use their weapon have a greater impact on how easily they can avoid being hit in melee combat.


Headfirst wrote:
As for slowing down combat, I think it's worth it to add some really visceral moments. Taking an arrow to the arm, hitting a troll square in the head, knowing that a spike trap disabled one of your legs... those help put you in the moment. If the time it takes to roll on hit location charts can be "paid for" by removing other boring parts of combat, all the better!

It depends on how many times you have to roll those rolls. I'm worried that some fights will just be waiting for someone to roll a Nat 1 on their Fort save, because neither side has enough damage to hurt the other.

I'd still love to see a combat example.

Grand Lodge

DominusMegadeus wrote:
Changing the basic stats the characters are based on is going to cause even more problems than getting rid of HP. This is sounding less and less worth the hassle every post.

Yeah, I got off topic. Changing the hit point system doesn't require any changes to the base attribute system; that was just part of my rant about redundancy.

However, with some tweaks to damage values here and there, I think a location-based wound system could replace the "bag of hit points" system. I'm not claiming it works already, just that I'm going to tinker with it and post some results in the future. I'm also open to suggestions and questions about it.

Grand Lodge

thejeff wrote:
It depends on how many times you have to roll those rolls.

Have you ever played Classic Battletech? You roll hit locations for every attack. Yes, it takes a little time to do that, but I think the results are worth it. It's more fun to imagine my war machine stomping around the battleground with a kink in its knee and one missing arm than it is to imagine my ranger standing on the battlefield with 42 of 65 hit points.


Headfirst wrote:
thejeff wrote:
It depends on how many times you have to roll those rolls.
Have you ever played Classic Battletech? You roll hit locations for every attack. Yes, it takes a little time to do that, but I think the results are worth it. It's more fun to imagine my war machine stomping around the battleground with a kink in its knee and one missing arm than it is to imagine my ranger standing on the battlefield with 42 of 65 hit points.

I wasn't really talking about rolling for the hit locations, but about my concern that it will be common to only fail the fort save on a Nat 1. Going back and forth waiting for someone to roll a Nat 1 enough to be sufficiently crippled to lose is not going to be fun. Even if you do get to imagine a crippled arm at the end of it.

Grand Lodge

thejeff wrote:
my concern that it will be common to only fail the fort save on a Nat 1. Going back and forth waiting for someone to roll a Nat 1 enough to be sufficiently crippled to lose is not going to be fun.

Well, after some discussion here, it was proposed by someone that the base fort save be 10 + [damage]. Then that got me scared that people would never make their fort saves. We need data!

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Headfirst wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
There was actually a game where they gave illustrations of high/low str/con mixes.

These are exactly the kind of obscure, ultra-rare anecdotes that I was talking about. They don't justify a needlessly broad array of attributes. Let's go crazy with it for a second:

For every high str/low con (or vise versa) example you can think of, I can name just as many or more examples of characters (real or fictional) that have super high agility, but low hand-eye coordination (or the other way around). Most brain surgeons can't do cartwheels, and most Olympic gymnasts can't juggle knives, yet dexterity remains the combination of both traits.

Then we move on to the stark difference between physical attractiveness and genuine charm, two traits that actually rarely coincide, yet they're both lumped into charisma. Now boggle when you realize that that contradiction is also smashed together with leadership. Let's start a list of famous generals throughout history that were also supermodels; it won't take long.

And as for that marathon runner you gave as an example? The skinny guy who can run all day? You think that means his constitution (in Pathfinder terminology) is 18? I'll bet he goes down after one solid punch (like most of us would), so that example goes out the window. Turns out that stamina and durability are very different traits, so why hang the both under constitution?

As for slowing down combat, I think it's worth it to add some really visceral moments. Taking an arrow to the arm, hitting a troll square in the head, knowing that a spike trap disabled one of your legs... those help put you in the moment. If the time it takes to roll on hit location charts can be "paid for" by removing other boring parts of combat, all the better!

Your examples are bad.

Beauty is in no way a dominating part of Charisma...it's 'one' of the factors. Very attractive and with no charm is totally possible. 18 Cha in no way obligates you to be attractive or stylish. It requires you to be a leader. A supermodel with no personality completely lacks the portion of charisma that is part of the social skill points like Diplomacy. Yet she can develop that skill and get charm to back up the fact that her smile is going to have men checking to see if their wives are around.

That marathoner is probably level 1-2. Like most of us, he'd go down in one punch. Now, give him basic training in boxing and experience taking some hits, and he's a bantamweight who can just keep going and going.

The heal skill is Wisdom based. The acrobatics skill is dex-based. Kindly realize that acrobats are extremely strong and agile for their size. Brain surgeons tend to be very intelligent and precise in their movements.

But for both of these, the key factor is going to be one has skill points and feats in acrobatics, and the other has skill points and feats in Heal, which completely dominate the otherwise specific uses of their dexterity. I hazard that you'd find both of them remarkably talented with pistols.

Ability scores do not assume that everyone with 18 Intelligence is intelligent in the same exact proportion. One guy may have a virtually eidetic memory, another one good at puzzle solving, another one gets flashes of inspiration, another has amazing powers of focus and concentration, and another can juggle multiple problems in his head and solve them without need to write them down.

Those are all different aspects of intelligence. As James Jacobs pointed out, just because you have an 18 Int doesn't mean you're a natural wizard. As was found out in the last Jeggare novel...an extremely intelligent man who painfully had no talent for wizardry, finding out in the end he's a sage sorcerer.

==Aelryinth

Grand Lodge

Aelryinth wrote:
Your examples are bad.

It was my fault for writing such a long post. I guess it was easy to miss the point. The point was: The game already has some strange traits rolled into the same attribute. Are physical strength and stamina more or less different than agility and hand-eye coordination? My argument is that they're at least very close, hence the game could easily combine Strength and Constitution without much fallout. Of course, the rest of the rules would have to be adjusted, but my other point was that simplifying and streamlining game systems makes them faster, easier to master, and more accessible to new players.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Well, if you go back to 2E skills and powers, they actually broke the six ability scores into 2 different categories, and you could take +/-2 to the scores as you split them. Like Dexterity was Coordination and Reflexes, your base 16 could be an 18 for your archer, dropping your Reflexes for AC to 14.

But, eh. All ability scores are abstractions, in the end. You only need so much realism.

==Aelryinth

Grand Lodge

Aelryinth wrote:
You only need so much realism.

I'm going to take this absolutely true statement you made and use it as a springboard to get us back on topic. Exchanging hit points for a wound/location system isn't necessarily about adding realism to the game; it's about making more visceral and cinematic.

It's fun to know that your arrow just nailed a goblin in the head, or that an ogre just crushed your arm with his massive club. Sure, a good DM will fill in these kinds of things on the fly, but I think it would be awesome if it was handled through a fast, streamlined, more engaging game system.

We hear all the time (especially in criticism for 4th Edition) that modern RPGs are starting to look and feel a lot like video games. Ability cooldowns, level requirements, switching to "squares" instead of "feet" for distances, etc. I can think of nothing more video game-y than a health bar floating over the head of every character, which is what hit points really are.


Headfirst wrote:

[

We hear all the time (especially in criticism for 4th Edition) that modern RPGs are starting to look and feel a lot like video games. Ability cooldowns, level requirements, switching to "squares" instead of "feet" for distances, etc. I can think of nothing more video game-y than a health bar floating over the head of every character, which is what hit points really are.

It's really hard to call hit points video gamey when D&D invented them (or inherited them from war games?) long before video games touched them.

Grand Lodge

thejeff wrote:
Headfirst wrote:

[

We hear all the time (especially in criticism for 4th Edition) that modern RPGs are starting to look and feel a lot like video games. Ability cooldowns, level requirements, switching to "squares" instead of "feet" for distances, etc. I can think of nothing more video game-y than a health bar floating over the head of every character, which is what hit points really are.

It's really hard to call hit points video gamey when D&D invented them (or inherited them from war games?) long before video games touched them.

You're right; let me rephrase.

Hit points, as a mathematical abstraction, run contrary to immersion, high drama, and verisimilitude. While their origins date all the way back to tabletop war games, video games really picked up that ball and ran with it, which is why I think of them as video game-y.


The idea of introducing cinematic aspect to the game is good, although one does need to beware of slowing things down. The way One Roll Engine (preferably a decently proofread version like Reign) keeps track of wounds is a start on this, although it suffers from the flaw of being too coarse-grained (to fix this, increase the number of shock/wound boxes per location, not necessarily all by the same amount), and from the flaw that better hits automatically gravitate to the head (ORE simplified things a bit TOO much -- should have retained a separate hit location die, to be rolled simultaneously with the attack dice).

And let's not be so quick to dismiss video games -- sometimes they actually have good examples of how to do things. For instance, in WarCraft III (the real-time strategy game, not to be confused with its successor World of WarCraft), hit points and damage do scale with level, but the scaling is not so extreme as in D&D/PF, although it adds automatic scaling of armor (although the armor does percentage-based damage reduction rather than decreasing hit probability). In D&D/PF, a 10th level Rogue has average about 9 times more hit points and does roughly 4 times more damage per attack (and has more attacks) when Sneak Attacking, as well as being likely to have benefited from non-automatic armor class increase. In contrast, a 10th level WarCraft III hero usually has around 2 times more hit points (effectively 2.5 to 3 times more when considering armor, although not against spells), and does around 2 times more damage per attack (and has a mild increase in attack speed), with the exception of a handful of heroes that have special abilities that increase hit points, attack damage, attack speed, or armor beyond the normal scaling. As an aside, it also has a nice spell point based magic system, too (which unlike World of WarCraft, works the same for martial heroes as for primarily spell casting heroes). The point is that you don't have to go all the way from ridiculous scaling to no scaling -- maybe something in between would be best. WarCraft III even cuts the number of ability scores down to 3 (Strength, Intelligence, and Agility), and makes clear and separate use of all 3 of them). And WarCraft III is a pretty cinematic game, too, even though some things look odd with the 12 year old graphical engine.

Grand Lodge

UnArcaneElection wrote:
And let's not be so quick to dismiss video games -- sometimes they actually have good examples of how to do things.

You don't have to tell me that; I work in the video game industry. :)

UnArcaneElection wrote:
The point is that you don't have to go all the way from ridiculous scaling to no scaling

The alternate wound/location system I outlined above still scales. Characters with increasing reflex saves are going to keep up with monster attacks. Good fortitude saves are going to keep up with the damage.

So, while the hit point system offsets increased damage by adding more hit points to each character's "bag of hit points," my system keeps the math simple and the accounting down by setting the number of wounds as static, then just tracking saves versus attacks and damage.


Headfirst wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
And let's not be so quick to dismiss video games -- sometimes they actually have good examples of how to do things.

You don't have to tell me that; I work in the video game industry. :)

UnArcaneElection wrote:
The point is that you don't have to go all the way from ridiculous scaling to no scaling

The alternate wound/location system I outlined above still scales. Characters with increasing reflex saves are going to keep up with monster attacks. Good fortitude saves are going to keep up with the damage.

So, while the hit point system offsets increased damage by adding more hit points to each character's "bag of hit points," my system keeps the math simple and the accounting down by setting the number of wounds as static, then just tracking saves versus attacks and damage.

In theory it can. I'm not at all sure that in practice it will and considering that you're still debating +10 modifiers, I don't think you are either. :)

I'm also not sure about keeping the math down. Tracking separate hit locations (with separate Fort Saves (and Reflex?) since you mentioned partial armor), multiple rolls for each attack (Reflex save, hit location, damage, multiple fort saves) and still needing to track all the usual bonuses to hit and to damage.

But it is interesting and I agree with your earlier post. We need data.
It's your concept, go generate some :)


Sure is a relief to be posting on a real computer again instead of a phone . . . .

One thing to be aware of is that if you need to burn quasi-vigor points to avoid hits, this would need to work as an Immediate action, which would be workable for a table game (although it might still slow things down), but would be a nightmare for PbP unless you had some way of automating it.


thejeff I've played or read a few of those other systems (Shadowrun, World of Darkness, Grimm, and True20 to name a few), and I've enjoyed them, but I keep coming back to D&D/PF. As I've mentioned in previous posts, I hope that my ideas will eventually emerge as an entirely new game system, but 3.5/PF is the system I know best and what I prefer to use as a design starting point.

Headfirst Maybe I missed it in a previous post of yours, but did you have an example of your hit location chart/injuries per hit location or anything like that? At one point, in a previous attempt to tinker with Hit Points, I actually designed a character sheet that used hit locations instead of hit points. I wish I could find it to share on here.

Basically, the hit locations corresponded to the number you rolled for your attack roll. If I remember correctly, if you rolled a 1 or an 11, it was a head-shot; if you rolled a 2-3 or 12-13, it was an arm shot; f you rolled a 4-6 or 14-16 it was a leg shot; and if you rolled a 7-10 or 17-20, it was a torso shot. This way, there was a 10% chance to swing for the head, a 20% chance for an arm, 30% for a leg, and a 40% chance to hit the torso, all spread out over the high and low integers on the die.

I also drew from World of Darkness in that my character sheet used dots of health, rather than points, that were arranged on a character silhouette. For instance, each arm could take two serious injuries before being disabled, each leg could take three, the head could take two, and the torso could take eight.

If I were to go back to that system, I would probably use your method of a Fortitude save to determine the severity of an injury, rather than whatever convoluted method I used before, which I think involved the character's Fort bonus being used as a Wound threshold or something awful like that. I'd still like to see the math on scaling Reflex and Fortitude saves against monster and NPC attack bonuses and damage, respectively.

Quote:
rant

I agree with some of your points about redundancy, but not when it comes to attributes. I actually feel that there should be more attributes. My personal favorite system for attributes is World of Darkness, where there are three categories of attributes (Physical, Mental, and Social) and three categories within each attribute (Power, Finesse, and Resistance). For example, your Physical Power stat is Strength, your Mental Finesse stat is Wits, and your Social Resistance stat is Composure. I really enjoyed that particular level of granularity. I also like that it does away with Wisdom as a stat. Wisdom, in my opinion, belongs in the same category as Appearance: something that adds flavor to the character, but isn't a core aspect.

Thomas Long 175 I think it's interesting that you brought up Shadowrun, because Headstrong's suggestion of a Reflex save-based defense combined with armor adding to a Fortitude save to negate/mitigate the potential injury is very similar to how Shadowrun handles combat. Combining that with a hit-location system is, in my opinion, a very interesting direction.

Quote:
If you put in dodge mechanics then sooner or later dodge is gonna fail and it will be instadeath.

Only if the mechanic is poorly implemented. There are some quick-fixes (add a dodge bonus equal to BAB or 1/2 BAB, add a dodge bonus equal to Reflex save bonus, add a dodge bonus based on the armor proficiencies granted to the class), or some not-so-quick fixes (like my earlier suggestion for adding a new resource to improve AC), but half the fun for people who enjoy tinkering with this stuff is figuring out what works, what doesn't, and why it does and doesn't work.

Quote:
If you put in damage mitigation mechanics then the system can be gamed and you're left with invincible characters, the very thing you were trying to get rid of in the first place.

Again, only if the mechanic is implemented without proper testing. Although, one could argue that any system can be "gamed", and Pathfinder is no exception. A lot of that comes from the mindset of the gamers, though. You get a lot more power-players in D&D/PF than in, say, World of Darkness.

Quote:
Honestly if you're dead set on this try looking at runequest. Aiming for different body parts meant penalties to hit, but the smaller body parts had different hp and different penalties associated with them.

I actually picked up Runequest the other day! Sadly, I haven't had a chance to do more than casually skim through it due to work pressures and finishing some summer classes. My immediate impression is that it's a little too granular for my taste.

As I tinker with my own version of a non-scaling-HP system, I've really been enjoying working out ways to deal with the scaling damage issues. Physical attacks aren't posing as much of a problem as I was afraid they would, especially since I found an alternate way to handle critical hits, but sneak attack and really powerful evocation spells are proving an interesting challenge.

On a side-note, I recently discovered Elements of Magic. This is fantastic. It is everything that I wanted Words of Power to be and a hundred more things that I never even thought about. You can make swords out of Time, make armor out of Death, and make people become irrationally attracted to inanimate objects. Has nothing to do with the HP topic, just thought I'd mention it. Very interesting product for anyone looking for an alternative to Vancian casting.

Grand Lodge

Witch's Knight wrote:
did you have an example of your hit location chart/injuries per hit location or anything like that?

My initial idea was to be as simple as possible. Every time you get hit, roll a Fort save, DC 10 + [damage taken]. If you fail, roll 1d6.

1: Torso
2: Left Arm
3: Right Arm
4: Left Leg
5: Right Leg
6: Head

Yes, I know this isn't a perfect breakdown of the ratios of the humanoid body. I just wanted to keep it simple. Each location has four states.

Healthy (no wounds)
Injured (wounded once)
Disabled (wounded twice)
Amputated (wounded thrice)

Whenever a character suffers a wound, whatever they're doing with that limb is affected. This could stay really simple (when a limb is disabled, you can't use it) or it could get a little more involved (when a limb is wounded, make a save or drop what you're holding, fall prone, get stunned for a round, etc).

If an injured limb takes another wound, it becomes disabled. Arms and legs can't be used while disabled. If your head is disabled, you're unconscious. If your torso is disabled, you're bleeding out. If a limb takes a third wound, it's gone. Arms and legs get severed, heads decapitated, and torsos destroyed.

Cure Light Wounds completely fixes one limb, Cure Moderate Wounds fixes two, serious three, etc. A heal skill check can take one limb from injured to healthy while "in the field," but getting a limb back from being disabled requires long-term care or magical healing.

So, this sounds like a lot of extra accounting, right? Yeah, but it's worth it for the fun, cinematic feel that limb-based wound tracking brings to the game. To compensate for all this, I'd probably adopt a 4th Edition "minion" system so I wouldn't have to track wounds for minor bad guys. If a goblin takes one wound (fails one fort save), it's dead. I'll save my time and energy for tracking wounds on bosses and mini-bosses.

I'm a firm believer that it's never bad to have players roll more dice. It's one of the best ways to get players involved, keep them engaged, and get them off their phones. Rolling a reflex save to avoid an attack feels active, it feels like I'm doing something, not just pumping up my AC and hoping it's high enough.

You could further streamline this system by having the players roll all the extra stuff.

"The ogre swings his gnarled club at you and gets a 17, roll your reflex save! Nope, 14 fails; he got you. He does 9 damage, roll two fort saves, DC 19. A 9 and a 15? Two fails! That's two wounds. Okay, roll 1d6 to see where he hits you. Oh no, your right arm! It's wounded twice, so it's disabled, you drop your sword."

Note how the DM is still just rolling the ogre's attack and damage, exactly as he would using the normal hit point system. The difference is that the player is rolling a bunch of extra dice to try to dodge, absorb, and determine where he gets hit.


I threw this together this morning. It works like

this:

This very rough system assumes two variant rules: Armor as Damage Reduction and a variant critical hit system that does something other than multiply damage.

Hit location is determined by the d20 roll of the attacker. A 1 or 11 on the die targets the head, a 2 or 12 targets the right arm, a 3 or 13 targets the left arm, a 4 or 14 targets the right leg, a 5 or 15 targets the left leg, and all other numbers (6-10 and 16-20) target the torso.

Wound severity is based on Constitution. St. John the Destroyer has a Constitution score of 12.

Wounds are tracked individually, not cumulatively. If St. John takes 4 damage from one hit, followed by 6 damage from a second hit, he tracks them as a 4-damage hit and a 6-damage hit, not 10 damage total.

A Light Wound is anything less than 1/2 your Constitution score. Light Wounds are purely cosmetic (slight bruising, small cuts, etc.) that have no effect on gameplay or combat, and can be dispensed with entirely if you like. St. John takes a hit to his torso that deals 5 damage, after his Damage Reduction. Since 5 damage is less than 1/2 his Constitution score, the hit is considered a Light Wound.

A Moderate Wound is anything between 1/2 and your total Constitution score. In the round after you sustain a Moderate Wound, you take a -1 penalty to any checks involving the affected limb. Head wounds apply that penalty to all checks. St. John takes a hit to his sword arm that deals 9 damage, after his DR. Since 9 damage is more than 1/2 of his Constitution score and less than his total Constitution score, the hit is considered a Moderate Wound. St. John makes a note on his character sheet and takes a -1 penalty to any checks or rolls involving that arm for the next round.

A Serious Wound is anything between your total Constitution score and double your Constitution score. In the round after you sustain a Serious Wound, you are nauseated from the pain. Additionally, you are sickened until until all Serious Wounds are healed. St. John takes a hit to his left leg that deals 14 damage, after his DR. Since 14 damage is more than his total Constitution score and less than double his Constitution score, the hit is a Serious Wound. St. John is nauseated for the next round, and is sickened until he can tend to the wound.

A Critical Wound is anything more than double your total Wound Points. Any time you take a Deadly Wound, you must make two Fortitude saves, each with a DC equal to the damage dealt. The first determines what happens to the injured limb. Failure means that the limb is amputated or otherwise destroyed. Success means that the limb is disabled until the wound is healed. In both cases, you suffer 1d4 point of Constitution damage every round until the wound is treated with the Heal skill or receives magical healing. Characters who fail this save in the event of a Head or Torso Wound are in much more danger, and must be treated with the Heal skill or receive magical healing within a number of rounds equal to their Constitution modifier (minimum 1) or die (unless they die due to Constitution damage first). The second Fortitude save determines how you are affected by the pain. Success means you are nauseated for 1 round, and you take a -5 penalty to all rolls and checks and are staggered until the wound is healed. Failure means that you fall unconscious. Victims of a Critical Head Wound automatically fail this second save. St. John takes a hit to his torso that deals 27 damage, after his DR. Since 27 damage is more than double his Constitution score, the hit is considered a Critical Wound. John attempts the first Fortitude save and rolls a 32, so he has at least a few rounds to live. He attempts the second Fortitude save but only rolls a 15, and so falls unconscious immediately.

Recovery:

All wounds that a character receives heal naturally at a rate of 1 point of damage for eight hours of rest, or 2 points of damage for a full 24 hours of rest. Receiving long-term care from someone with the Heal skill increases the rate of natural healing by 1 (2 points of damage for eight hours of rest, 3 for a full 24 hours). If St. John had sustained three Light Wounds of 2, 3, and 5 points of damage, after one night of rest those would become Light Wounds of 1, 2, and 4 damage. He will need at least two nights of rest to recover from the lightest wound, and a full five nights of rest to recover fully. Alternately, he could rest for two days straight and be fully recovered.

Magical healing works as normal, except that each cure spell can only target a single Wound. The healing from a heal spell may be divided up to heal multiple Wounds.

When a Moderate, Serious, or Critical wound has been reduced, naturally or magically, to below 1/2, your total, or double your total Constitution score, respectively, then the wound is downgraded to the next lowest type of wound. St. John has a Serious Wound of 14 damage and a Critical Wound of 28 damage, and is receiving long-term care while undergoing complete bed rest. After one day, the 28-damage wound would become a 25-damage wound, and would still be considered Critical, imparting its staggered condition and -5 penalty to all rolls and checks. The 14-damage wound, however, would become an 11-damage wound, and would be considered a Moderate Wound rather than a Serious Wound for purposes of determining any penalties.

This only addresses what happens after you get hit, not how to avoid getting hit, but I think it has some interesting possibilities. It includes hit locations, but is both more granular and requires less rolls than Headstrong's method. The hit location is determined as soon as the attack is rolled, and a Fortitude save only comes into play on the most severe of hits. As I read through it again, it makes the PCs too tough, since you can pretty much take Moderate and Serious Wounds all day long with no ill effects, but I don't have any more time to tinker with it at the moment.

However, I think I would only use this method for PCs and very important NPCs. I'd use a simplified version of the above system for anything that's supposed to be more of a challenge (dies automatically if it takes more than double its Constitution score in one hit, flees after taking three Serious Wounds, etc.) and minion rules for most everything else. I want the PCs to have that level of granularity, but it doesn't matter for the monsters.

Edit That's Happy Camper's barbarian silhouette from the Happy Camper character sheets, in case it matters or anyone is wondering . . .

Dark Archive

The best non-hit point system I've seen is the one introduced in Unearthed Arcana and used in Mutants & Masterminds.

Unearthed Arcana Injury system

M&M damage save / toughness save mechanic, some scrolling down will be required, it's the entire combat rules section, pretty much

It can be pretty swingy (one hit knockouts are possible, as well as attacks that fail to score any damage whatsoever, and even attacks that literally *can't* damage the target, due to impervious toughness or object hardness or whatever), but that's probably appropriate for the super-hero action it's meant to simulate.

Grand Lodge

Set wrote:
Unearthed Arcana Injury system

Hmm, it sounds my system is just a simpler version of theirs. I'm sure whoever wrote that book put more time into their calculations than I did, so a Fort save of 15 + [damage/5] probably works out better in the long run than 10 + [damage].

I think I still like tracking location-based wounds, though. It's more fun that way on both sides. I want to end every adventure looking like Bruce Willis at the end of a Die Hard movie. Arm in a sling, bleeding head wound, bullet in the leg, but alive and smiling. For some reason, ending an adventure with 7/82 hit points just doesn't invoke the same feeling for me.


You could just snag their Fortitude save formula and keep everything else the same. It's always helpful when someone else has done the work for you, especially when it's OGL! :D

Grand Lodge

Witch's Knight wrote:
You could just snag their Fortitude save formula and keep everything else the same. It's always helpful when someone else has done the work for you, especially when it's OGL! :D

I'm not sure that would work. They're trying to keep save DCs low because they don't track wounds on individual limbs. Roll poorly once and you're down.

Maybe my system can get away with higher saves since failing a few of them probably isn't fatal.


Headfirst wrote:


{. . .}
As I read through it again, it makes the PCs too tough, since you can pretty much take Moderate and Serious Wounds all day long with no ill effects, but I don't have any more time to tinker with it at the moment.
{. . .}

Moderately easy way to fix this: If you get wounded in an area that is already wounded, you take a penalty to saves to resist the worst effects of the new wounds. Also, you need a Reflex save to keep the new wound from becoming a worsening of the existing wound.


I think I'll start by adding the potential of a more serious penalty with Serious Wounds. -2 to everything from shaken is rough, but it can't really get worse than that. I might add in a Fort save at the Serious Wound level, where failure means that the limb is disabled or all checks with that limb take a -5 penalty either instead of the -2 from sickened. That could bring in some interesting scenarios in a fight, if you were forced to choose between fighting with a wounded main hand or an uninjured off-hand. And having wounds upgraded on subsequent hits to the same spot is a good idea as well. If I get a chance this weekend (which I might), I'll throw some characters together and test it out, see how it works.

Grand Lodge

Check out Evil Lincolns approach to HPs as strain and injury. It keeps the game ROUGHLY the same but allows for rapid recovery of the strain of combat etc but that Wounds/Injuries don't come back without magic/applied heal skill etc. These are caused by failed saves and critical hits.

I'm using this in my Carrion Crown campaign atm and its proven to be ok so far.


I'm actually familiar with Evil Lincoln's variant (in fact, I think I posted in that thread during the first couple of pages), but it's ultimately not what I'm looking for. I want a system that actually deals with ducking and dodging and such, not one that just simulates it with attacks that beat my AC but don't actually do any lasting damage.

Most Wound variants, including Evil Lincoln's, boil down to, "He hit your AC, but it wasn't a critical hit/you didn't fail your save, so the damage instead comes from this magical pool of points that says that you dodged or were lucky or something like that."

I don't want that second pool.

If the orc actually hit me, I want to know how many of my teeth he knocked out, which the current system fails to simulate effectively. If he didn't hit me, then why am I tracking it like Wounds and Vigor and Wounds and Vitality and Wounds and Strain all want me to do?

That's why I'm tinkering with an approach that is completely divorced from Hit Points. I don't even want to start with them. I want to bypass them completely and come up with something new.

Grand Lodge

Thats a toughie WK, particularly with the game as it is and structured.

Maybe a dual approach? Active defense coupled with very limited hitpoints?

What I mean by that is something like HPs = Con + BAB, coupled with an opposed roll against attacks with the margin being the hit (with armour soaking some of it).

Eddie attacks Frank. He rolls a 17 with all bonuses factored in. Frank rolls to parry (or dodge) and gets a 15. He takes 2 points of damage. Given that he's wearing armour this may or may not get through (depending on how you want to use armour).

Frank counters and gets 23. Eddie only gets 10 on his roll - and takes a whopping 13 damage! This is likely to drop him or at least make him wish he'd stayed in bed.

Alternatively? Middle Earth Role Playing/Rolemaster does a really good job - sure the locations are random when you roll for crits but it does a great job of simulating gritty nasty damage.

The old Chaosism Runequest isn't bad either. It uses a HP system tied to Con but as the HPs are scattered all over your body locations armour becomes key if you want to keep your limbs.


Pardon me if I missed noticing, but have you looked at the 40k RPGs? Seems to me they have almost the exact system you're looking for. Partial armor, armor as DR, hit locations, low "HP"/damage scaling, active defense, and critical wounds by location and damage type. They are D% system(s), but they could make a perfect springboard for you if you aren't a fan of the core system. Dark Heresy is the "original" the other two just have an increased starting power level.


Witch's Knight wrote:
I threw this together this morning. It works like ** spoiler omitted **...

Let me suggest a system that is easier and a little better to control.

Split a creature's hit points into different fractions to establish wound levels and then compare damage to it to determine the results of the wounds.

For example: A standard pathfinder Ogre has 30 hit points. Set the wound levels as follows (and conveniently enough, it matches the cure spells):

Light: 1 hp
Moderate: 7 hp
Serious: 15 hp
Critical: 22 hp
Dead: 30 hp

A standard Pathfinder Great Wyrm Red Dragon has 449 hit points. It's wound levels would be:

Slight: 1 hp
Moderate: 112 hp
Serious: 224 hp
Critical: 336 hp
Dead: 449 hp

A standard 5th-level human fighter (assuming Con = 10, max hit points at first level and 1/2 + 1 hit point thereafter) has 34 hit points, resulting in wound levels of:

Slight: 1 hp
Moderate: 8 hp
Serious: 17 hp
Critical: 25 hp
Dead: 34 hp

So - if the fighter hits the ogre and does 12 points of damage, you don't subtract hit points, you just compare the 12 points of damage to the wound levels, see that it is more than 7 and less than 15 which means the ogre suffers a moderate wound.

A homebrew I've been kicking around uses this approach and establishes the following effects:

Slight: -1 on all actions
Moderate: -2 on all actions; make a DC 15 Fort save or go into shock (fail by more than 5 and start bleeding out too)
Serious: -3 on all actions; DC 20 Fort save or go into shock (fail by more than 5 and start bleeding out too)
Critical: -4 on all actions; automatically go into shock; DC 25 Fort save or start bleeding out too.

Subsequent similar wounds: if you take a second wound of the same severity, it becomes a wound of one level higher. For example, if you have a moderate wound and take a second moderate wound, instead it becomes a serious wound.

Shock: you are unable to act for the remainder of the round; at the beginning of each round, you have to make a DC 15 Will save or be unable to act during that round; in addition, for the remainder of the combat, any action that would put you into shock makes you begin bleeding out instead.

Bleeding out: at the end of every round, your wound level increases by one until you exceed critical at which point you are dead. An ally can make a DC 15 heal check to stabilize you at your current wound level prior to bleeding out.

This system naturally also lends itself to hit locations, which allows you to have effects like reducing movement speed (leg wounds), chances to drop held objects (arm/hand wounds), loss of consciousness (head wounds), or chance of amputation (limb wounds).

It also naturally lends itself to using armor as DR.

As you can see, most opponents will take a few hits before dropping, but the stuff that is SUPPOSED to be scary (such as a Great Wyrm Red Dragon) remains scary because it requires many more hits and chances are it won't just go into shock and bleed out without some help...

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Looks a lot like the AEG system for Legend of Five Rings there.

==Aelryinth


Funnily enough, 3catcircus . . .

Ogre: Constitution 15

Light Wound: 1-7 (less than 1/2 Constitution total, rounded down)

Moderate Wound: 8-15 (1/2 Constitution total to full Constitution total)

Serious Wound: 16-30 (Full Constitution total to double Constitution total)

Critical Wound: 31< (More than double Constitution total).

Your suggestion and mine handle the ogre pretty much exactly, except that I'm comparing against fractions of Constitution instead of fractions of Hit Points.

Not trying to prove anything (I'm well aware that my suggestion is a rough-draft idea that I came up with very late at night and is riddled with flaws), but I just thought that particular example was humorous :)

Helaman I'll check out Middle-Earth RP and see what I think. I've experimented with splitting hit points up all over the body, and I found it . . . interesting, but I'm trying for something different this time. I

Kalriostraz I've looked at WH40K before (Dark Heresy), but last time I was tinkering with something else entirely. I'll have another look at their wound system, thanks!


Witch's Knight wrote:

Funnily enough, 3catcircus . . .

Ogre: Constitution 15

Light Wound: 1-7 (less than 1/2 Constitution total, rounded down)

Moderate Wound: 8-15 (1/2 Constitution total to full Constitution total)

Serious Wound: 16-30 (Full Constitution total to double Constitution total)

Critical Wound: 31< (More than double Constitution total).

Your suggestion and mine handle the ogre pretty much exactly, except that I'm comparing against fractions of Constitution instead of fractions of Hit Points.

Not trying to prove anything (I'm well aware that my suggestion is a rough-draft idea that I came up with very late at night and is riddled with flaws), but I just thought that particular example was humorous :)

No worries. I think it is an artifact of using CON for a creature in the range of small - large. If we swing outside that range, I think it breaks down.

My houserules adapt the wound levels concept from Twilight:2013 but fraction off of hit points because it is easy to do. If I were to use that system all the way, I'd have to establish base hit points (i.e. trip point of a moderate wound) using the formula [10 + (STR + 2 x CON)]/4, which breaks down when you swing outside of the small to large size band. (The dragon would only have 27 base hit points using that formula). Since your suggestion is based off of CON (which is a linear variable in the formula, above), it would probably have the same issues if you just used CON.

A purple worm (gargantuan) would have base hit points of 50 by fractioning statted hit points and 24 by using STR and CON.

A scarlet spider (tiny) would have 1 hp (fractioning) and 8 (STR/CON) - which is twice its statted hp.

I think you'd need to, if adapting off of CON (or STR/CON as in the formula I listed), have to use a size modifier, a la Ken Hood's Grim-n-Gritty system.


I was thinking that last night, as well. I've read Ken Hood's system, but it's been a while. I'll have to go back and refresh. On a tangent, I was also thinking that I really wish there was a better system for fighting monsters larger than Huge. I've seen suggestions that involve skill checks and such, but . . . I dunno. If I ever really stop and think about four humans trying to kill a great red wyrm, it just looks kinda silly.

I mean, based on illustrations, a spear to the neck (assuming you could punch through or otherwise bypass the scales and hide) would be like a human getting stabbed in the neck with a pencil: incredibly painful, bloody, possibly shock-inducing, but not immediately lethal. Same with getting stabbed in the eye. You'd blind it, but actually reaching its brain with a spear would be very difficult. It's too bad there's not a good system anywhere for Shadow of the Colossus/God of War type set-piece battles against truly massive enemies. On the other hand, I don't know that that kind of "climb on, find a weak spot, smack it, get tossed off, climb on again, find a new weak spot, repeat" gameplay would be any improvement on the current model of "smack its toes until it dies."

But I think I'll start a new thread for that discussion.

Back to the Wound System: I'm kicking around a few other ideas for larger creatures. We'll see what looks good. Can anyone recommend books or movies where humans fight massive creatures? "Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit" spring to mind, as well as "Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children". If anyone else knows others, I'd be very interested in checking them out :)

Grand Lodge

Headfirst wrote:

Each location has four states.

Healthy (no wounds)
Injured (wounded once)
Disabled (wounded twice)
Amputated (wounded thrice)

Here's a thought: What if the armor itself served as another "wound" on each limb? Before a limb gets amputated, the armor in that location would get the broken condition and stop protecting it.

This would give you some cool situations, where a warrior could take an orc's battleaxe to the head, but instead of killing him, it just wounds him and ruins his helmet. Very 300, don't you think?

Shields get smashed in half, chain sleeves torn off, boots boiled away in the acid lake, etc. I know it's a little more complexity in the system, but would it be worth it for the sweet visuals and dynamic aspect it would add to combat? ("The orc smashes my shield? Okay, I attack back, but now with two hands on my longsword!")


Headfirst Kinda depends on how OK your players are with you breaking their stuff. I know that some DMs actually refuse to use Sunder attempts against their players because their players feel that it's terribly unfair to break the PCs hard-won equipment.

I've seen the idea done before, though. One of my old DMs used Armor as DR, but you tracked your armor's HP every time it reduced damage for you. It was interesting, but since he didn't make custom character sheets to include that info it got messy quickly.

Could work, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really wouldn't call HP a sacred cow at all. That suggests that it's a bit of tradition that has gone unexamined and unquestioned for decades. Honestly though, other RPGs have generally been more keen on experimenting with other forms of damage tracking than really any other mechanic. Back in the day, Palladium had the whole HP+SDC (+MDC) system, so very many people have done random hit location tables, and limb damage, or systems that track wounds that just pile on penalties, or really abstracted systems where rather than physical damage, rolls not in your favor result in narrative consequences. Even Pathfinder has played around with a couple optional rules, like the whole massive damage thing.

At the end of the day though, HP has staying power because... it works. This really isn't a game about exploring he realistic consequences of violence, if it was, gaining extra hit dice as you level wouldn't be a thing, and combat is generally a showcase of a large variety of monsters with interesting powers, being put down fairly quickly so we can move on to other aspects of the game. Having a real simple abstract point tracking countdown to death works perfectly fine for that...

... and more to the point, as others have noted, the current system is so deeply tied into so very many aspects of the rules and how everything is balanced that you are going to really have to redesign pretty much the whole game if you pull too hard at that particular thread.

Grand Lodge

Googleshng wrote:
I really wouldn't call HP a sacred cow at all.

Yes, yes, the game is perfect, we know. Welcome to the "Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew" section of the forums, where we like to tinker around with it. If you're happy with the game as it is, you're wasting your own breath and all of our time by posting here. No offense, but going out of your way to try to shut down people discussing new ideas is pointless.

Grand Lodge

Witch's Knight wrote:
Kinda depends on how OK your players are with you breaking their stuff. I know that some DMs actually refuse to use Sunder attempts against their players because their players feel that it's terribly unfair to break the PCs hard-won equipment.

Then for my system, it could be optional, totally up to the player. They can choose to break their armor in order to prevent a wound. If your party has a fantastic healer, maybe it's not worth it to let your mithral full plate fall apart, but if you're a 1st level character, buying another suit of splint mail is way cheaper than a scroll of regeneration or raise dead.


Quote:
Then for my system, it could be optional, totally up to the player. They can choose to break their armor in order to prevent a wound. If your party has a fantastic healer, maybe it's not worth it to let your mithral full plate fall apart, but if you're a 1st level character, buying another suit of splint mail is way cheaper than a scroll of regeneration or raise dead.

I'm pretty sure there's actually a feat for that somewhere . . .


Headfirst wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:

Design a new game, you kids. Get off of my lawn.

My lawn is Pathfinder in this analogy. And you guys are kids because you think modding the core damage mechanic of a game developed over 5 years is a good idea; it is not a good idea. All the combat rules are working under a different set of assumptions.

I'm sure someone said that when Pathfinder started changing the core features of D&D...

On a related note, I've been toying around with a system that totally gets rid of hit points and armor class. Instead:

* Your reflex save determines how hard you are to hit. Shield bonuses add to this save now (along with all the other logical ones: dodge, deflection, etc). The DM can either present attacks as set numbers (the way Numenera does it, which totally works in Pathfinder) or roll attacks normally.

* Your fortitude save determines how hard you are to damage. When you get hit, you make a fort save with a DC equal to the damage taken. Armor bonuses (equipment and natural) add to this save now. If you fail, you suffer a wound. Wounds are location based. Arm wounded once? Drop the item you're holding. Wounded twice? Arm disabled until healed.

I haven't worked out the rest yet, and I'd love to hear positive suggestions. (Yes, I know some of you will think this is a stupid idea. Save your breath and my time by not replying to this post.) This system sounds more complicated than using basic hit points, but it cuts down on the math (good), gets players rolling more dice (good), and feels more visceral than abstract (good). Thoughts?

This actually sounds really interesting. I would somehow incorporate hit dice there though, so barbarians can still take more damage than fighters can still take more damage than rogues can still take more damage than wizards. I mean partially it is sorted because most D10/d12 HD classes have good fortitude saves while most d8 and d6 classes have bad ones, but then there are exceptions like monks who would have the same damage capacity as barbarians in that case.

Not that the monk couldn't use it, but the point is that there would be only two different damage capacities among classes as opposed to the current 4, and it would nerf some classes compared to others, while buffing others.

Grand Lodge

Threeshades wrote:
I would somehow incorporate hit dice there though, so barbarians can still take more damage than fighters can still take more damage than rogues can still take more damage than wizards. I mean partially it is sorted because most D10/d12 HD classes have good fortitude saves while most d8 and d6 classes have bad ones, but then there are exceptions like monks who would have...

I was thinking about ways to incorporate your idea when it hit me that ignoring hit dice could smooth out some of the game's current imbalances.

Most people will agree that barbarians are almost universally more powerful and versatile than fighters, so homogenizing d12 and d10 is actually a step in the right direction. It works the same way for monks, who get a desperately needed boost. The increased importance of the reflex save is also a huge bump for rogues.

My main concerns are with rangers, who stand to gain the most (and are already among the game's most powerful classes), and druids, who suffer the most (low reflex save, low priority of dexterity in most builds, limited selection of sub-optimal armor, etc).


Monks also gain a lot, but as i said they probably need it.

Druids have good fortitude saves so they become tougher. I wouldn't worry about them.

Alchemists and Gunslingers would also become super tough.

Grand Lodge

Threeshades wrote:

Monks also gain a lot, but as i said they probably need it.

Druids have good fortitude saves so they become tougher. I wouldn't worry about them.

Alchemists and Gunslingers would also become super tough.

Basically, as long as none of the overpowered classes get a bump and none of the underpowered ones get nerfed, I'm happy with the proposed system. The kinks can always be worked out later, but I don't think the difference between d12 and d10, or d8 and d6 is enough to fiddle with it as-is.

Incidentally, after crunching some preliminary numbers (based on average damage rates, typical armor worn, and popular attribute arrays), it seems like this system is going to increase survivability at low levels and make high level encounters slightly more deadly. Would anyone consider those to be bad things?


Headfirst wrote:
Threeshades wrote:

Monks also gain a lot, but as i said they probably need it.

Druids have good fortitude saves so they become tougher. I wouldn't worry about them.

Alchemists and Gunslingers would also become super tough.

Basically, as long as none of the overpowered classes get a bump and none of the underpowered ones get nerfed, I'm happy with the proposed system. The kinks can always be worked out later, but I don't think the difference between d12 and d10, or d8 and d6 is enough to fiddle with it as-is.

Incidentally, after crunching some preliminary numbers (based on average damage rates, typical armor worn, and popular attribute arrays), it seems like this system is going to increase survivability at low levels and make high level encounters slightly more deadly. Would anyone consider those to be bad things?

Not really. Depending on how extreme they are. High level encounters are already pretty deadly, though the rocket tag is based at least as much on spells as martial damage. I wouldn't want to push the rocket tag up much farther.

I don't have a problem with survivability at low levels going up. I would have a problem if that just drags out encounters, with neither side able to damage the other without extreme luck. Or I suppose if it's too weighted in the PCs favor. If armored PCs can basically ignore many opponents at low level, then there's a problem.

Grand Lodge

thejeff wrote:
I don't have a problem with survivability at low levels going up. I would have a problem if that just drags out encounters, with neither side able to damage the other without extreme luck. Or I suppose if it's too weighted in the PCs favor. If armored PCs can basically ignore many opponents at low level, then there's a problem.

I think what I like best about it is that it decreases the likelihood that a low-level character would get killed in one hit. Also, it makes it so that high-level characters can't sit back in their laurels and rely on their dozens and dozens of hit points to insulate them from most attacks.

The more I look at the numbers, the more I'm convinced that this system would find a nice balance between high and low save DCs.

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Killing The Sacred Cow: Exchanging the Abstraction of Hit Points for New Mechanics All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.