Are hit points necessary?


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

At the end of the day, what do HP really accomplish? Do they track how much damage we took? How much damage we can take yet before we die? How much pain and suffering we dish out with our favored weapon? How much healing power we can apply?

Abstractly, sure.

d20pfsrd.com wrote:
Hit points are an abstraction signifying how robust and healthy a creature is at the current moment. [...] Wounds subtract hit points, while healing (both natural and magical) restores hit points.

They tell us when our character or monster is too wounded to keep on going. They tell us when our character is dead.

But is that really all? Don't they also implicitly tell us how good a given character or monster is at combat? If two characters have the same attributes, the one who takes a level of Wizard will have far fewer HP than the mechanically identical character who took a level of Barbarian. Their scores may give them bonus HP, but in the end, the classes focussed on combat just have more HP.

But why HP? Why use a pool of abstract numbers to reflect the current robustness or healthiness? Combat is about wounding and being wounded - dealing and taking (or, better, avoiding) damage. We have the mechanic of the saving throw to avoid or resist effects and conditions, even certain attacks. Could we apply the same mechanic to giving and taking damage?

If we don't use HP, is it still D&D? (or, well, Pathfinder)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Doc_Outlands wrote:

At the end of the day, what do HP really accomplish?

They provide an incredibly simple mechanic for tracking damage that also serves as a constant reward, since when you level up, you gain more of them and thus get more powerful. They're a quick and easy general representation of how tough something is as well.

The game's supposed to be fun, and as fast-paced as possible so each player can take his or her turn and then not have to wait forever for his or her NEXT turn.

Far more than D&D uses hit points. It's in this day one of the most universally understood concepts in gaming. You don't throw something out when it's that well understood.


James Jacobs wrote:
Far more than D&D uses hit points. It's in this day one of the most universally understood concepts in gaming. You don't throw something out when it's that well understood.

That's really my main issue with HP. Everyone use the HP system. Everywhere. It's the default implementation whether it makes sense or not.

Sometimes it works. Sometimes... I kinda wish a developer would have sat down and thought about an appropriate system (which could end up being hit-points!) rather than just automatically go with hit points without thinking about it.

That said, I wouldn't expect (or want) D&D - and by extension PF - to go an alternate route. It works fine for what D&D tries to do. It can, however, also lead to the impression of slug fests where two fighters just wail on each other without moving until one or the other drops (Rift and its 10,000 hp monsters come to mind :p).

Sometime it works. Sometime it doesn't. But it has become so ingrained into gaming culture that it seems no one really think about it any more (an example where I really didn't think it worked was in Dragon Age).

Ahem. Anyway. /rant. :)


The White Wolf games did exactly what you are asking: they did away with hit points and replaced them with wound levels that represented levels of injury. They ranged from "Bruised" to "Crippled" and carried increasing penalties at each level. If you were a skilled (or naturally-talented) fighter, you had a decent chance of avoiding taking damage, but it wasn't guaranteed. If you were tough enough, you could ignore some of the damage and avoid those higher penalties. Eventually, though, a running fight would almost always wear you down. And the characters not built for combat almost always went down first.

This worked really well for Vampire and Mage and Changeling, three games in which the role-playing and the deadly reality of combat were emphasized. Characters were encouraged by the system and the setting to find ways around combat rather than diving right in. Granted, certain characters would still be built for it, and they would be good at it, but not invulnerable (unless you were playing Elysium or something like it). With Werewolf, though, it could kind of go off the rails. Yes, werewolves were designed to be killing machines, and they did that really well. The problem came when facing non-Werewolf adversaries. They would steamroller over the opposition.

This would not work for D&D, in my opinion. Using a system like this would be workable at low levels, maybe, but it would break down quickly in the mid-to-high levels. Melee classes would start looking more and more like the Werewolves of the group, immune to anything but magical powers, and the non-melee classes would be too vulnerable when the fighting started. And with the nature of 3.5/PF play and adventure design, and the genre as a whole, it would be much less fun to play.


I actually really liked the hit point system in Dragon Age. I'd sort of like to implement something like it in my games. Your "hit points" are really more "how long can I keep fighting in this battle" points. Once the battle is over, you quickly return to full hp. If you "died" during the battle, you actually just lost the ability to fight on any longer. When the battle is over, you still have the ability to stand up and get some healing. You come back with a wound (which offers a small mechanical penalty) which can be fixed with the right gear/spells. It removes the "I am one point of damage away from dying but I can still fight at full capacity!" syndrome we run into with lots of other games.

That said, I think hit points are a vital concept to the game. If there was no mechanic that determined how long I could fight, then combat would be essentially meaningless. Alternately, if all combat was essentially "save or die", then I probably would find myself another game to play, like craps, where at least a random roll of the dice could earn me money.

As far as using the saves mechanic for damage, we sort of already do that. It's called AC. It's just sort of backwards from how saves work. With saves, the offense has a static number that the defense needs to roll to beat; with AC, the defender has the static number. If you want to unify those, you could (I guess) make the defender roll a d20 and add armor, shield, natural armor, deflection, etc. bonuses to it and make it beat the attacker's attack bonus +10. That said, there still needs to be some sort of system to determine how successful an attack was: enter hit points.

Since HP is an abstraction of physical vitality, endurance, luck and combat training, it makes sense for different characters to have differing amounts. Given your identical characters who took a level in wizard or barbarian, it makes sense for them to have different survivability in battle. The barbarian (having more physical vitality, endurance, luck and/or training) ought to fare better in combat than the wizard, who spent most of his time learning how to alter reality to his whims. The barbarian was learning how to absorb, dodge and block all sorts of attacks. However, those two identically statted characters will survive the exact same amount of time once both reach -1 hit points; since the have the same CON score, they can bleed out for the same number of rounds. The barbarian just took a little longer to kill.

So we have a convenient system to refer to whenever something is supposed to physically hurt a creature. It's a unified mechanic that works for player character, NPCs and monsters alike. Since weapons, by extension of martial class abilities and feats, can deal things other than hit point damage, it's not really an issue of "fighters only target hit points while wizards can do all sorts of stuff" (at least not as much as it used to be). Hit points make sense to differentiate between getting hurt, getting stunned, getting turned to stone or any of a dozen other things that can happen.


A couple of systems I know of have used the "wounded categories" rather than HP, those being True20 by Green Ronin and the SWRPG by West End Games. I own a True20 hardback and am eyeing some of their mechanics because we played a LOT of d6SW "back in the day" and I liked the combat that didn't rely on HP.

And that's where this is ultimately heading... Are Hit Points right for a modern or future game that relies on firearms/ranged combat rather than melee? Or does it just come down to personal preference?

ETA: Mauril, you posted while I was composing and meditating on this. I'll come back around and address some of your points later.

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Well, the first thing to keep in mind is that all RPGs are simulations. Sometimes those simulations are close to reality, sometime they are very far away from.

D&D, Pathfinder, and other fantasy games are clearly far from reality, and in the genre they represent have powers that can wipe out whole villiages, and heroes who can withstand taking a direct hit from those powers. There are a couple ways to deal with that. Either the hero rolls something to see how well he endures each hit or his has a stat like hp that can simply be adjusted.

Now, in your second post you brought up modern games. Modern setting are different animals then fantasy settings. In most cases, the good guys can't take more then a few bullets before dropping, and single bullets are often enough to take someone out. If you use HP like it is in Pathfinder you have a few options. You can increase the damage of firearms to make them horribly deadly. You could also have the amount of HP gain at each level be smaller. Lastly, you could implement a massive damage system that lets people survive some, but not all, of the big hits they take.

I am working on a modern game right now, and I am considering using a vitality/wound system. In this system, Vitality points are less lethal and can be slept off in a night. Wound points are life threatening and return at a rate of 1 per night of rest. When damage is taken it is taken from vitality first, then wounds. Lose all your wounds, you are dying.

In a way, that system is similar to hp, except that it doesn't grow with the levels. Still, it is a way of representing health and how much damage can be taken.

Now, add the D&D or Pathfinder magic systems and my system wont work well. At high levels you can dish out great amounts of damage but can not take the damage yourself. In fact, there would be lots of one hit kills in high levels and a higher possibility of TPKs.

My point, HP is just a tool in a simulation that works well with the other parts of that simulation. It works well, and thus they are necessary in D&D and PF.


I think the larger issue is, as gamers, we have become so accustomed to having HP sitting there like the gas gauge on our car that we can't (collectively) fathom another way of doing things. Gaming is a simulation where our game of choice has to ride the continuum between realism at one end and playability at the other. Over the years, games that have been published have colored our perceptions about where a game “is supposed to sit” on this line. Even moreso, the games that have managed to develop staying power often color our perceptions about what mechanics a game has to have to be “playable.”

I believe HP to be one of these mechanics. I have a hunch the lethality of firearms is another. More on that later.

”Mauril” wrote:
Hit points make sense to differentiate between getting hurt, getting stunned, getting turned to stone or any of a dozen other things that can happen.

But why does it have to be an accumulation of numeric tic-marks?

”CalebTGordan” wrote:
Either the hero rolls something to see how well he endures each hit or his has a stat like hp that can simply be adjusted.

And so now we have another potential approach, which has been used by other systems.

 

”CalebTGordan” wrote:
In most cases, the good guys can't take more then a few bullets before dropping, and single bullets are often enough to take someone out. If you use HP like it is in Pathfinder you have a few options. You can increase the damage of firearms to make them horribly deadly.

And yet, you can look up Department of Justice statistics that show tens of thousands of non-lethal gunshot wounds in any given year in the USA. So I do not personally “buy” the argument that a pistol is necessarily more lethal than a knife. One hit with a sword, axe, or hammer is often enough to take someone out. Witness again DOJ statistics that a firearm only accounts for about 2 out of 3 murders. Yes, those are apalling numbers from a social standpoint, but that isn't our focus. The use of a firearm to commit a murder – if firearms are so much more lethal that we need to change how we account for their damage in our games – should then by that argument result in more than “just” twice as many deaths.

Besides, this is a game I play for escapist fun. I want to be the movie hero who /does/ take a round and looks at it, declaring, “I ain't got time to bleed.” Do I want realism? I play characters who can fling eldritch blasts with a thought – do I want realism? Not usually. I'm okay with taking hits and still going.

”Mauril” wrote:
 The barbarian was learning how to absorb, dodge and block all sorts of attacks.

So apparently we agree HP measure more about combat than just being wounded. If a puddle of numbers can do it, then why couldn't another approach do it, as well?

”Mauril” wrote:
Hit points make sense to differentiate between getting hurt, getting stunned, getting turned to stone or any of a dozen other things that can happen.

There's “conditions” and “lost HP.” Why not have your wound a condition, as well?

”CalebTGordan” wrote:
I am considering using a vitality/wound system

Excellent – another take on tracking damage. This is what I'm looking for. So effectively, you have a Hit Point system that does not increase as you level up and has the added feature of having a “danger zone” that lets you know you are very close to dying? Can I safely assume that being in the red – losing wound points – imparts some sort of penalty as well as letting the player know the character is soon to shuffle off this mortal coil? Simulated though it may be? Are there ways to be injured that results in skipping the loss of vitality and goes straight to loosing wound points? If so, how do you determine which sources of damage merit such treatment? How does your system differ from the traditional HP system, other than the aforementioned lack of advancement as characters are leveled up?

”CalebTGordan” wrote:
Modern setting are different animals then fantasy settings.

But are they different enough to require different rules-sets? Why is the current mechanism for tracking health/injury suitable for fantasy but not modern settings? Conversely, why would a mechanism suitable for a modern-setting game necessarily be unsuitable for a fantasy setting?

”CalebTGordan” wrote:
Now, add the D&D or Pathfinder magic systems and my system wont work well. At high levels you can dish out great amounts of damage but can not take the damage yourself.

Yes, because you are allowing half the equation to follow the original mechanic, while effectively hamstringing the other half. It may work – and work well – for your modern setting. But why not try to find a system that allows a magic-user to dish out huge amounts of damage while allowing the warrior a bona-fide shot at doing the heroic thing and dodging it/absorbing it/shaking it off?

”Mauril” wrote:
Alternately, if all combat was essentially "save or die", then I probably would find myself another game to play

A well-built system that is heavily weighted to the “realism” end of the spectrum would result in exactly this. So does weighing firearm damage with multiple dice of damage. A well-built system more towards the “playable” end of the spectrum will scale as characters advance in level – just like the current HP system does.

”CalebTGordan” wrote:
My point, HP is just a tool in a simulation that works well with the other parts of that simulation. It works well, and thus they are necessary in D&D and PF.

I agree a method for tracking health is necessary. I agree the Hit Point system works and works well with the existing system – particularly since the system was built with Hit Points as the designated system for tracking health. My question, however, remains – is it the /only/ way?

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Doc_Outlands wrote:
I agree a method for tracking health is necessary. I agree the Hit Point system works and works well with the existing system – particularly since the system was built with Hit Points as the designated system for tracking health. My question, however, remains – is it the /only/ way?

No, it's not the only way. Even in this thread, several alternative methods have been cited. However, it does happen to be the simplest way of tracking damage, and it is easily understood. It is also the system that has been used in every edition of D&D, including version 3.5, on which Pathfinder is based. It wouldn't make sense to replace the hit point system unless there were a very good reason to do so. The fact is that hit points work quite well for what they are intended to do.

Unearthed Arcana, for D&D 3.5, included a couple of variant systems: Injuries and Vitality/Wounds. Both are reasonable alternatives, depending on the feel you are going for with your game. But I contend that Hit Points are still the easiest "default" system for a game like Pathfinder.


Thanks, Tamago - I was wondering where the injury system in True20 came from. The one you referenced seems to be a bit less "grainy" and possibly a touch more lethal.

I had intended to change my last line - the /only/ should have been changed to read "best."

Vitality & Wound is still a Hit Point system, albeit a touch more complicated.


Doc_Outlands wrote:


Vitality & Wound is still a Hit Point system, albeit a touch more complicated.

And not a bad one IMHO.

It takes some tweaking, but the concept that there is a large-ist bank of point that abstractly represent the ability to avoid blow AND a small-ish bank of points representing your actual physical condition is for me the best of both world.

'findel

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Doc_Outlands wrote:


I had intended to change my last line - the /only/ should have been changed to read "best."

You should check out "Kobold's Guide to Game Design." Only one article addresses hit points, but some of the articles do talk about designing games and finding what works best for the type of game you are designing.

To better address the question, "Is the hit point system the best way?"

The answer is both yes and no. I failed to explain that in my first post.

Yes, it is the best way for the oldest fantasy RPG game to track health. The reason? Ask a game designer. I suspect they would tell you several things. First, it works. If it didn't then it would have been changed a long time ago.

Second, there is a lot of book keeping in D&D and Pathfinder. Trust me, my DM is on me all the time about using electronic character sheets, but I save everyone's butts because I am able to track every single thing giving the party a bonus, penalty, condition, or on going damage. I watch people at my game table take two minutes trying to add up all the bonuses to a single roll. Point is, the system is complicated enough that things would probably slow down with a more complicated health system.

Third, it is simple. You have X amount of Health Point, you take Y damage, which is subtracted from X. Simple, easy to learn, and easy to use.

Lastly, as the characters grow in power, so do the dangers they come across. My current group is level 10, and we just had a situation where everyone took 60 points of damage from a fireball. That is a TPK in with the vitality/wound system I am using (but didn't really invent,) in my modern game. The combat system in D&D/PF works really well with HP.

Now, why NO?

Every system is different. There is not really such a thing as the "best" system (despite arguments to the contrary,) and because every system has a different way of dealing with combat, they also have different ways of dealing with health. What works best with Dragon Age does not work well with True20 in terms of HP.

What really should be asked is, what do you mean by "best?"

Are you asking if it is the best way to represent realistic health and damage? The answer is no, but I don't think there is a system right now that has a truly realistic system to track health.

Are you asking if it is the most efficient? It might very well be. It is easy to understand, track, and use. Little time is used in dealing with it.

What are you really asking here?

Excuse this post if it comes across as hostile. Not my purpose. I am just continuing this conversation as I am currently thinking about the "best" health system to use in my modern game.


I think the point where Hitpoints doesn't work as well, is those corner cases where ablative "I can do something to mitigate my chances of dying" should no longer apply.

Things like surprise attacks from an opponent you were completely unaware of, or falling damage, etc.

Since these are mostly corner cases, it's as simple as switching over to a different (hopefully existing) mechanic. In most cases, usually a Fort save, etc.

.

The main benefit of hitpoints is the very nature of ablative damage. It gives a very good "gamist" feel to playing the game. Staged damage (basically, rolling saves and going down a damage meter), gives a completely different feel, and doesn't have the same "whittling away" factor.
Completely different sensation, one I attribute to more modern style gaming, than fantasy.

I'm not sure if that's because it feels more "realistic", or if it's just a line of distinction because I used hitpoints when playing D&D and staged damage when playing Mutants and Masterminds, and never got a chance to play d20 Modern with hitpoints.

*shrug*

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Doc_Outlands wrote:


”CalebTGordan” wrote:
In most cases, the good guys can't take more then a few bullets before dropping, and single bullets are often enough to take someone out. If you use HP like it is in Pathfinder you have a few options. You can increase the damage of firearms to make them horribly deadly.

And yet, you can look up Department of Justice statistics that show tens of thousands of non-lethal gunshot wounds in any given year in the USA. So I do not personally “buy” the argument that a pistol is necessarily more lethal than a knife. One hit with a sword, axe, or hammer is often enough to take someone out. Witness again DOJ statistics that a firearm only accounts for about 2 out of 3 murders. Yes, those are apalling numbers from a social standpoint, but that isn't our focus. The use of a firearm to commit a murder – if firearms are so much more lethal that we need to change how we account for their damage in our games – should then by that argument result in more than “just” twice as many deaths.

Besides, this is a game I play for escapist fun. I want to be the movie hero who /does/ take a round and looks at it, declaring, “I ain't got time to bleed.” Do I want realism? I play characters who can fling eldritch blasts with a thought – do I want realism? Not usually. I'm okay with taking hits and still going.

Most games are based on fiction, movies, and such. Yes, the statistics you quoted are correct, but let us take a look at game design for a moment.

There is no such thing (in my humble opinion of course,)as a game system that can cover more then a couple genres. The biggest failing of D20 Modern was that it tried to cover every possible genre, even fantasy, under one umbrella of rules. Spy, super hero, horror, space combat, military, and post apocalyptic genres were all addressed in official rule books.

Now guns, a staple in modern games, are a funny animal. In most literature and movies dealing with spies, guns are the tool of the trade and most people don't survive multiple bullet wounds. In the genre of horror, the monster takes more bullets then a single magazine can hold before it goes down. In post apocalyptic setting, one bullet wound left untreated can kill.

So, back to a point here, sometimes the genre dictates how health and damage is handled. Some genres have people taking loads of damage before falling in battle. Kung-fu films, for example, have people beating on each other for upwards of fifteen minutes, and in some cases with weapons like swords. In other genres people take only a hit or two before falling dead. Samurai films are notorious for their one hit kills.

In my opinion, a spy game is less about combat and more about intrigue, deception, sabotage, and stealth. In such a game, I expect combat to be deadly. If it had the same system of health as D&D, then why would I fear the gun the bad guy points at me when I am captured and interrogated? Besides, in spy movies, the only fights that have both sides hurting each other for any extended period of time are the fist fights, and even then only between the main good guy and main bad guy (or main goon.)

If I was running a military game, I might have a more forgiving health system. Taking a bullet is expected, but once again, I wouldn't want someone being able to take more then three or four bullets without some serious damage.

The health system of course is tied to the combat system, and the combat system (possibly the meat of any game rules system,) is tied to the type of game and genre it is built for. In the case of guns and modern games, the variety of possible systems should have the lethality of firearms vary to match the intended genre.


Doc_Outlands wrote:
stuff about d6 SWRPG

I couldn't agree more. West End Games' SWRPG really is my go-to game for examples of good non-hp systems. :)

As for White Wolf games, I was considering mention them as an alternative system... though I'm not /really/ sure they are. Wounds are still really a form of hit points that just don't expand (much) as you increase in power. WHFRP and Dark Heresy are other examples... still hit points, but you're kinda almost stuck with your starting total.

And while we're on the topic of SWRPG, I also think d20 Star Wars did a good job with the wounds/vitality system. Made it less of a fuel gauge that worked really well for the setting.

Of course, if we're talking about what would work for D&D I think hit points are pretty spot on. If for no other reason than it's always been used and it works just fine.


CalebTGordan wrote:

What are you really asking here?

Excuse this post if it comes across as hostile. Not my purpose. I am just continuing this conversation as I am currently thinking about the "best" health system to use in my modern game.

Not at all! I hope the reverse is true as well - I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm trying to settle something in my own head and I'm afraid I may not be articulating my thoughts very well.

I think what I am trying to ask is what you answered in your most recent post. Something along the lines of "Is a Hit Point based system functional across multiple genres for all attack forms?"

CalebTGordan wrote:
There is no such thing (in my humble opinion of course,)as a game system that can cover more then a couple genres.

I always thought GURPS did pretty well, as long as you wanted gritty & deadly.

CalebTGordan wrote:
The health system of course is tied to the combat system, and the combat system (possibly the meat of any game rules system,) is tied to the type of game and genre it is built for.

I think you may have answered my question right there, despite how poorly I managed to ask it. Thank you!

Follow-on question, if I may. (I'm just starting my first cup of coffee for the day, so if I'm less clear than I should be, kindly point it out so I can revisit it once the caffeine has a chance to hit.) Can it still *be* Pathfinder if it is set in space with a different damage system?


Slaunyeh wrote:
Doc_Outlands wrote:
stuff about d6 SWRPG
I couldn't agree more. West End Games' SWRPG really is my go-to game for examples of good non-hp systems. :)

I know we enjoyed it a lot and played the crud out of it. Before D&D 3ed came out, I had started creating a fantasy system to use the d6 mechanics. When the WotC edition of D&D showed up, I tried it and told my wife, "*THIS* is far better than what I was trying to build. Let's run with it." My son discovered my old d6SW books this past year and has been asking questions that have awakened probably nostalgia as much as anything. But it made me wonder... True20 used a wound-tracking system similar to the old D6 game. True20 sees very little love, d6SW thrived for years (and the d6 system is *still* out there fighting). True20 has taken a shot at being the GURPS of the OGL, trying to give GMs a way to handle a wide variety of genres, but never saw much in the way of support. Did the system not work? If not, why not? So I'm starting to dig into perceptions of the systems.

Slaunyeh wrote:
And while we're on the topic of SWRPG, I also think d20 Star Wars did a good job with the wounds/vitality system. Made it less of a fuel gauge that worked really well for the setting.

I only played D20SW once, ages ago, pre-Saga, so I don't really know how well the system works.

Slaunyeh wrote:
Of course, if we're talking about what would work for D&D I think hit points are pretty spot on. If for no other reason than it's always been used and it works just fine.

Ah, the bane of innovation - "But we've always done it that way!" ;)


This isn't about innovation. It's about sticking with what works so you can focus on other things. You're suggesting the reinvention of the wheel.
Are hit points necessary.. no not at all. But once you remove too much you aren't playing the same game anymore. This is after all a game. It has rules.
You can change the rules in any game as much as you like but eventually you are trying to play chute's and ladders on a monopoly board.

Or trying to sell WotC's 4th edition as Dungeons and Dragons
(sorry couldn't resist)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

One solution to having hit points reflect combat capability is to grant a negative level to each level's fraction of hit points lost. This would work more easily where PCs get an set amount of hit points per level, as opposed to rolling them, but isn't strictly necessary.

For example, a 5th level fighter might have 50 hit points. If he takes 12 points of damage, he also gains 1 negative level. If he takes 8 more hit points, he gains a second negative level. When he is at 0 hit points, he has 5 negative levels.

A 5th level wizard might have 25 hit points. If he takes 12 points of damage, he gains 2 negative levels. If he takes 8 more points of damage, he gains 2 more negative levels, for a total of 4. When he is at 0 hit points, he has 5 negative levels.

Might have to change the rules so that when your number of negative levels exceeds your level, you die, instead of when your number of negative hit points equals your level, you die.


@ralantar:
You appear to have the will-save of a Commoner.

So in your opinion, PFRPG must use HP in order to be PFRPG and any change creates a whole new game, correct?

@smilodan:
That looks like that could turn into an interesting system.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Yeah, just with a lot of book-keeping.

I think hit points are integral to the Pathfinder system. Different weapons do different amounts of damage, spells do different amounts of damage, monster attacks do different amounts of damage. Different weapons have different threat and critical damage values, and they have both mechanical and flavor and style influences on how characters are made and played.


Doc_Outlands wrote:

@ralantar:

You appear to have the will-save of a Commoner.

So in your opinion, PFRPG must use HP in order to be PFRPG and any change creates a whole new game, correct?

@smilodan:
That looks like that could turn into an interesting system.

oooh sorry chap, I think it's you that failed their intelligence check by the simplistic way you are interpreting what I said.


Perhaps the most realistic system, while still attempting to keep it abstract, would be to base everything off an effort pool, so if you are swinging a sword, casting a spell, running a marathon, using mental powers to influence someone, etc. it would all come from the same pool.

GURPS did something similar where spell powers and physical activity was based on a fatigue pool, and damage you took, was based on a health pool. But they did allow for burning health, should you run out of fatigue. This was simple but elegant. But it would need to be built into the system from the ground up.

The more pools (mechanics) you add, the more complex is becomes, like HP, spell slots, ki points, rage powers, songs, etc. It just depends on how much book keeping you prefer.


That sounds like it is just adding another layer on top of Hit points.
Essentially you are talking about a fatigue system being added on top of your actual health pool(hit points).
I think Harn has a system like this as well.
The problem I see with systems like this isn't for the players to book keep their pcs. It's far more intense for the DM trying to juggle a group of 5-10 monsters.


@Smilodan
Yeah, I can see where bookkeeping could get ... interesting.

You might be right about the degree of integration - that's a large part of the impetus behind this thread. The need for tracking current health is a given - the *how* to track it is what I am questioning.

@ralantar
Sorry - you didn't give me much to work with. It looks like what you are saying is: "The game is the game. Change the rules, change the game." Based on that, my question stands - you *appear* to be saying if you use a variant OGC health-tracking system, you are no longer playing Pathfinder. That's what I'm trying to verify.

@Uchawi:
Agreed on needing to be integrated from the beginning. I played a lot of GURPS ages ago. Both systems have things that appeal to me and things that (to me) detract from playability. And since every person differs in opinion, what I really like will be something my players either don't care about or outright hate.

Delicate balance that - finding the most "I like this"s vs. the fewest "I hate this"s for everyone involved. Witness PFRPG and D&D4. ;)


ralantar wrote:

The problem I see with systems like this isn't for the players to book keep their pcs. It's far more intense for the DM trying to juggle a group of 5-10 monsters.

Definitely! Since I'm almost always the DM, I'm rather leery of anything that makes it harder to track monsters during combat.


The benefit of HPs is they allow incrimental progress toward resolution, which is vital to build and maintain drama.

Compare it with skills.

The trouble with skills is they tend to not build drama as much as a combat does because the whole event is often resolved on one die roll. That one die roll can be exciting, but it's an on/off switch. You either succeed or fail. There is no build-up to an ultimate succcess or failure, so no build-up of dramatic tension. The concept behind attempts to rectify this, like 4E's skill challenge systems, essentially try to do the same thing that HPs do - let you chip away at the problem while the problem chips away at you. By being able to track incrimental progress and setback the players can sense success or failure approach - that builds excitment. By also having the possibility of dramatic reversal, the tension of build-up doesn't turn into a drag to the inevitable, and this is what Crits and saves do.

The concept of HPs allows all this. That's why they've become such a standard.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Asphesteros wrote:

The benefit of HPs is they allow incrimental progress toward resolution, which is vital to build and maintain drama.

Compare it with skills.

The trouble with skills is they tend to not build drama as much as a combat does because the whole event is often resolved on one die roll. That one die roll can be exciting, but it's an on/off switch. You either succeed or fail. There is no build-up to an ultimate succcess or failure, so no build-up of dramatic tension. The concept behind attempts to rectify this, like 4E's skill challenge systems, essentially try to do the same thing that HPs do - let you chip away at the problem while the problem chips away at you. By being able to track incrimental progress and setback the players can sense success or failure approach - that builds excitment. By also having the possibility of dramatic reversal, the tension of build-up doesn't turn into a drag to the inevitable, and this is what Crits and saves do.

The concept of HPs allows all this. That's why they've become such a standard.

One thing you can do for skills to make them more "hit pointy" is to make the DC something like 100 to 200, but add previous attempts of the skill to the skill check.

For example, the 10th level PCs are trying to escape from a room with a locked door. The lock DC is 150, which means the rogue is going to have to make 4-10 successful checks to open the door.

The PCs are searching for a book in a burning library. They need to make a DC 300 Perception check to find the book, but take 1d6 non-lethal smoke damage each round and 1d6 lethal fire damage each round from all the fire. The book will be destroyed by fire in 5 rounds. This means the PCs have to make at least a total of 60 on their combined Perception checks each round as they search.


That's awesome. Something else you can do to represent the 'progression to failure side' is maybe a 'frustration' stat representing the patience of the person attempting the skill, which gets degraded on fails.

So the PC needs to succeed in the task before their frustration level get so high they give up - the challenge defeated them.

More I think about this more I love it - definitly going to homebrew a skill challenge system based on this. Maybe base the frustration points off of Will, like Con for HPs, with maybe another stat acting as a defense, like maybe Cha, how Dex grants AC - describe what spell effects and other skills that can act like heals, etc.

Something like this would definiately make disarming a trap a lot more interesting.


My players like this. Would the result of *every* roll be subtracted from the DC#? I mean, I can see a couple of ways to go with that - a high DC, with the result of every roll being subtracted from it or a normal DC with only a success being subtracted from the large total - either subtracting the entire check-result or just the amount by which the PC beat the DC. Thoughts on the best approach?


SmiloDan wrote:


One thing you can do for skills to make them more "hit pointy" is to make the DC something like 100 to 200, but add previous attempts of the skill to the skill check.

For example, the 10th level PCs are trying to escape from a room with a locked door. The lock DC is 150, which means the rogue is going to have to make 4-10 successful checks to open the door.

The PCs are searching for a book in a burning library. They need to make a DC 300 Perception check to find the book, but take 1d6 non-lethal smoke damage each round and 1d6 lethal fire damage each round from all the fire. The book will be destroyed by fire in 5 rounds. This means the PCs have to make at least a total of 60 on their combined Perception checks each round as they search.

The problem with this is that it is situational, and doesn't work well across the board. The rouge in your first example is merely a time sink. Unless there is an outside force imposing a penalty for failure or a time limit he merely sits there and keeps making checks until he succeeds. This is how the craft skill currently works.

Your second example involved setting up a specific situation with an opposing threat and a time limit. It works as you intend, but most skill checks will be difficult to set up this way.

I have yet to find a system I like better than HP, although I do like imposing penalties on characters to reflect damage taken starting a 1/2 max HP. The closest I have come to an alternate to how HP worked that I liked was a reverse of the Wound/Vitality point system I started work on. Basically it had HP which worked as normal, and a Wound number equal to your Con Score. Each hit taken would inflict 1 wound, and when you ran out of wound points you would be unconscious, but not bleeding out unless below 0 HP. I just never quite figured out how I wanted healing to interact with it and didn't like how heavily it favored characters/creatures with a high number of attacks.


Doc_Outlands wrote:
ralantar wrote:

The problem I see with systems like this isn't for the players to book keep their pcs. It's far more intense for the DM trying to juggle a group of 5-10 monsters.

Definitely! Since I'm almost always the DM, I'm rather leery of anything that makes it harder to track monsters during combat.

This is one of the difficulties that come with the alternatives to HP systems. Even if it layed over hp in some versions versions it can get really cumberson.

For example, start wars saga edition has something called the condition track. Basically if you get hit hard (tame more damage then your fortitude defense) you take a hit on a 5step condition track, that has scaling penalties (from -1 to most things all the way to unconcious). This has 2 impacts.

First, it means that as a dm you have to track negative conditions (beside the normal stuff imposed by abilities and effects) on every monster as it takes damage, and track what that does to their defenseses and their attacks/abilities. If you have 10 enemies in a fight this can be a real pain. It slows things down when you have to either write out new attack routines/defenses for each enemy, or do alot of arithmetic when they act or are acted upon. This inevitably slows things down.

Second it means at higher levels, hp means much less. Attacking the condition track becomes far more important then doing hp damamge. At which point why have hp in the first place?

As for systems like vampire or true 20 that use a complete alternative, I think they are fine for a 'grity', 'realistic' game where combat is always supposed to be deadly. But I dont think that works for Dnd. Since the begining DnD and subsequently pathfinder has had a relatively forgiving combat system, and a high fantasy mindset in terms of what is possible. Replacing HP with something like a wounds system would fundamentally alter the way the game is played. And at that point I think you are better off working with a system designed around it.


Kolokotroni wrote:


For example, start wars saga edition has something called the condition track. Basically if you get hit hard (tame more damage then your fortitude defense) you take a hit on a 5step condition track, that has scaling penalties (from -1 to most things all the way to unconcious). This has 2 impacts.

First, it means that as a dm you have to track negative conditions (beside the normal stuff imposed by abilities and effects) on every monster as it takes damage, and track what that does to their defenseses and their attacks/abilities. If you have 10 enemies in a fight this can be a real pain. It slows things down when you have to either write out new attack routines/defenses for each enemy, or do alot of arithmetic when they act or are acted upon. This inevitably slows things down.

Second it means at higher levels, hp means much less. Attacking the condition track becomes far more important then doing hp damamge. At which point why have hp in the first place?

I have actually the condition track system over to PF for my houserules, along with a scaling defense bonus (to negate defensive magical items, etc.). It's working quite well so far.

What I've found it does is change combat to two focuses - wearing the enemy down over the course of a day, or a couple of very big hits. Big ol' scary monsters like dragons obviously have massive damage thresholds, and only uber-chargers can really penetrate it. On the other hand, it makes getting hit by enemies scary again, at all levels.

It's good fun so far. I've included my rules below.

Spoiler:
DAMAGE THRESHOLD
All characters have a new statistic, known as a Damage Threshold (DT). On your character sheet, display this value underneath your total Hit Point (HP) value.
This statistic is equal to the character's total Fortitude save, their character level, their defense bonus, and the value of their greatest hit-die. For example, Greg the Fighter (Human Fighter 6) has a damage threshold of 29 :
- 5 from his fortitude save
- 6 from double his level
- 8 from his defense bonus
- 10 from his hit-die value

Levin the Wizard (Elf Wizard 6) has a damage threshold of 18 :
- 2 from his save
- 6 from his level
- 4 from his defense bonus
- 6 from his hit-die value

Attacks that deal massive amounts of damage can impair or incapacitate you regardless of how many hit points you have remaining. Your damage threshold determines how much damage a single attack must deal to reduce your combat effectiveness, or in some cases, kill you. When a creature takes damage in excess of his damage threshold, he moves along a metric known as the Condition Track, reflecting injury and combat fatigue. There are five levels on the condition track. A creature may only move up or down the condition track in single steps. The penalties of the condition track also modify a creature's damage threshold.

• Normal State (no conditional penalties)
• -1 penalty to all defenses and saving throws; -1 penalty to attack rolls, ability checks and skill checks
• -2 penalty to all defenses and saving throws; -2 penalty to attack rolls, ability checks and skill checks.
• -5 penalty to all defenses and saving throws; -5 penalty to attack rolls, ability checks and skill checks.
• -10 penalty to all defenses and saving throws; -10 penalty to attack rolls, ability checks and skill checks; move at half speed only.
• Helpless; unconscious or disabled.

Enhancements and bonuses that add to your damage threshold: Fortitude save; character level; size bonus; value of greatest Hit Die; and also the character’s Defense Bonus (detailed below). Armor bonuses from magical or divine sources also contribute to damage threshold, but deflection, insight and un-typed bonuses do not.
If a creature has more than two classes, with differing hit dice, the creature may choose the more favorable hit die value for their damage threshold. This includes racial hit-die, if applicable.
Damage reductions apply to damage rolls before they are compared to the damage threshold of the creature being attacked.
Creatures larger than Medium size gain a bonus to their damage threshold. This size bonus is +5 for Large, +10 for Huge, +20 for Gargantuan and +50 for Colossal. This bonus is applied or removed, as appropriate, if a creature changes size.
You can improve your damage threshold with the feat Improved Damage Threshold, increasing your damage threshold by 5. This feat may only be taken once.
Display your condition track status underneath your DT value, on your character sheet. The easiest way is with a series of X's or dots, up to 5. You may also use a specific die as a counter, or a series of tokens, whatever your preference is.
You can improve your condition in combat by spending three Swift actions. These actions need not be consecutive.
• The most Swift Actions for recovery you may take in a turn is three. This forfeits all other actions for the round (excepting Free Actions and a 5ft step).
• If a character takes only a Standard Action or Move Action on their turn, they can spend two Swift Actions that turn.
• If a character both Moves and uses a Standard Action, they may only spend one Swift Action that turn.
You can improve the time it takes to recover from Conditions with the feat Shake if Off:
- prerequisites; Constitution 13, Endurance. Benefit: Spend two swift actions to move +1 step up the condition track.

A character's condition penalties return after the end of combat, as they merely put off the exhaustion for a few moments if they recovered at all during combat. The lowest conditional penalty gained by a creature in combat, above the Helpless condition, persists outside combat until healed.
A DC 15 Heal Check can remove one conditional penalty, taking one hour per step on the Condition Track. A character would need four hours of assisted healing to move from the fourth condition to the third condition, three to move from the third to the second, two from the second to the first, and one to become normal. For every 5 points the Heal check exceeds the DC, the recovery time decreases by a half-hour. A character cannot take a 20 on this check.
Resting normally for eight consecutive, uninterrupted hours removes all conditions affecting a creature and returns it to its normal state (except if it had been lowered to the last step of the track, Disabled; magical or mundane assisted healing is then required to begin moving up the condition track). The spell Lesser Restoration can move a creature one step up the condition track; Restoration and Greater Restoration remove all conditions and return a creature to its normal state.
Hit Points are tracked by the player during combat, however, other characters are not aware of other creatures' or characters' total remaining hit points, unless they succeed on a DC 15 Heal check as a move action. However, conditions on the condition track are readily apparent when others have full perception of the creature.
This system has been adapted from the Star Wars Saga Edition d20 rules, for use with Pathfinder.


Doc_Outlands wrote:
My players like this. Would the result of *every* roll be subtracted from the DC#? I mean, I can see a couple of ways to go with that - a high DC, with the result of every roll being subtracted from it or a normal DC with only a success being subtracted from the large total - either subtracting the entire check-result or just the amount by which the PC beat the DC. Thoughts on the best approach?

That approach parallels how crafting works. As myself and others noted, you need a penatly coming from the other side, like what the monsters dealing damage does in combats.

I was thinking adding a new 'patience/frustation' stat, but now think that'd add needless complexity. You can use non-leathal damage concepts, representing physical/mental strain and exhaustion. Something like each fail a check they have to make a save or take non-leathal damage appropriate to a CR value of the challenge.

Even for social skill challenges - ever get in a debate wiht someone so frustating it gave you a migraine, or got so distracted, frustrated, and upset you lose focus and can't concentrate on other things until you get over it? Could rationalise the damage like that - you're mentally exhausting yourself.

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Doc_Outlands wrote:
Can it still *be* Pathfinder if it is set in space with a different damage system?

Only a different damage system?

That is a question you should ask someone like James Jacobs. I believe someone like him would be able to answer that question better then me.

My initial reaction is, unless we are taking about a Spelljammer space setting, the answer is no.

I am sure you know about Spelljammer, the high fantasy space adventure where ships built by the different races of the multiverse ran on magic as they sped across the cosmos. It has space combat, guns, magic, and giant space hamsters. TSR did pretty well adapting the space genre into a classic D&D setting, thus making it possible to use the current rules for D&D with few additions.

And thus we have a setting that meshes two seemingly opposite genres together into a lovable and classic companionship. If it was Just a space setting (without the magic and the tinker gnome,) then the D&D system probably wouldn't have worked well and enough changes would have needed to be made to call the resulting game a different name (like Alternity.)

Now, if we are just talking about a different health and damage system (but keeping the d20 method of combat) we might be able to claim the game system is still pathfinder. But we are forgetting other parts of the game system as well. If we are playing a spelljammer like game we can keep all the Core and Base classes, the feats, the skills, and the magic system. If we are playing a high science fiction game, like Star Wars or Firefly, we need to cut out and replace at least the classes and the magic system. Once we cut at least one of those, we are no longer playing Pathfinder in my opinion.

Tricky question. A good one though.

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

SmiloDan wrote:

One thing you can do for skills to make them more "hit pointy" is to make the DC something like 100 to 200, but add previous attempts of the skill to the skill check.

For example, the 10th level PCs are trying to escape from a room with a locked door. The lock DC is 150, which means the rogue is going to have to make 4-10 successful checks to open the door.

The PCs are searching for a book in a burning library. They need to make a DC 300 Perception check to find the book, but take 1d6 non-lethal smoke damage each round and 1d6 lethal fire damage each round from all the fire. The book will be destroyed by fire in 5 rounds. This means the PCs have to make at least a total of 60 on their combined Perception checks each round as they search.

I like this idea for some but not all skill use situations. I can see this being a tool to build suspense, but if used too often it can be frustrating and cause games to feel like they are dragging on.

Nobody yet has addressed failures with skills that have specific failure scenarios. Disable Device, for example, states that failure by a certain amount causes the device to become harder to disable.

Should there be two DCs in that case? One to avoid failure, and one that tracks the progress of success?


ralantar wrote:

That sounds like it is just adding another layer on top of Hit points.

Essentially you are talking about a fatigue system being added on top of your actual health pool(hit points).
I think Harn has a system like this as well.
The problem I see with systems like this isn't for the players to book keep their pcs. It's far more intense for the DM trying to juggle a group of 5-10 monsters.

When you consider the DM has to track how many times a monster casts a spell, uses a special ability, and related items, just having two pools to determine what actions can be done, and how often, is alot simpler; it covers spells, martial actions, psionics, etc. But my intent was to mention some alternatives, versus finding an adequate replacement.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I think if there was an alternative to hit points or whatever, it should be a defensive d20 roll of some kind....or better yet 10 + modifier(s). Kind of like soak in Werewolf and Vampire, but with some kind of modifier added to it, so the DC would change on the circumstance too.

Maybe d20 to attack vs AC, then d20 damage against soak DC, with some EASY math conditional modifiers (-1, -2, -5, -10, -20, unconscious???) for the damaged states.

The only problem will be giving out different damage values to different weapons....maybe a static half rounded down? So daggers would be 1d20+2+Str modifier and greatswords would be 1d20+6+Str modifier, and soak might be 10 + HD value + Con modifier? So a dwarf fighter might have a soak DC of 10 + 5 + 4 = 19, and a wizard might have a soak DC of 10 + 3 + 0 = 13.

EDIT: This would also make a raging barbarian more capable of shrugging off damage, so you don't have the situation where the barbarian stops raging, loses his bonus hit points, and falls over dead.

FREESWORD: You can have healing magic restore 1 negative condition per die of healing. So CLW restores 1d8+1 hit points and 1 negative condition point. CMW 2d8+3 and 2 negative condition points, etc. etc.


SmiloDan, that's close to how True20 does it, actually.

@Caleb
Classes would have to change unless you *did* Spelljammer - ie: magic in space. Heck, even if you did Spelljammer, you'd have to change some of the stuff to reflect the presence of extra-terrestrial travel. "Operate Spelljamming Vessel," for instance... If you did NOT take a Spelljammer approach, you have to adjust feats and skills - and thus class special abilities - to account for technology.

Races would change to represent the aliens in the universe, as would monsters.

How everything works wouldn't change other than tracking damage.

Does that make a space setting - or a modern espionage setting - not Pathfinder?


Strictly speaking, some version of HP is necessary. A lot of games dress them up, reduce them to a fixed number, give the stages names, include damage penalties... but at the end of the day, if you take a certain amount of damage you die.

I have some issues with HP, but it isn't so much HP that's the problem but what they mean. At low levels, I find HP work fine, because the GM and players can easily extrapolate what the damage means.

As the HP increase over time, you're faced with characters suffering damage that should kill normal characters. Some people are good at explaining this away with abstraction, but the fact is it gets harder and harder to interpret that abstraction as the game wears on into higher levels. For every example of deftly explaining away HP nonsense ("it reflects the damage you took from dodging the giant's club, but a crit would have crushed you!") I can easily generate indescribable nonsense ("fire doesn't burn" "you survive a fall from 2000 feet" "any attack roll from 10th level or higher made with a sharp object").

Some people just are not bothered by this.

But... to put a name on it, HP aren't the problem. A lack of realistic consequences associated with HP damage are the problem (for me and some subset of players in general). You can rule that characters are fatigued at half their HP or something, and now you just have a scaled up version of a damage penalty system with lots of math behind it. That should work just fine for some people.

If such simple solutions are not enough for you, you really might consider that Pathfinder isn't the RPG you want. There are lots of systems that are good at different kinds of action, and if super-power style heroics are not your thing, then you probably can find something more suited to your needs than Pathfinder.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
CalebTGordan wrote:
There is no such thing (in my humble opinion of course,)as a game system that can cover more then a couple genres.

GURPS did OK.

However, the best game for simulating just about any genre is HERO System. "Spy, super hero, horror, space combat, military, and post apocalyptic genres..." can all be run with the same rules. Of course, it's much more of a toolset system than a building block system, where characters and abilities are able to be customized/optimized to an extreme degree (even more so than GURPS). Like GURPS, HERO System is a point-based system, not a level-based system.

Similar to a vitality/wound mechanic, damage was separated into STUN and BODY; losing all STUN would cause someone to become unconcious, while losing all BODY would be deadly. Both BODY and STUN are considered characteristics, which do not increase automatically; as a point-based system, all abilities/improvements have to be "bought" using either the initial pool of points or points earned as "experience" in play (usually in small amounts of 1-3 points per session). Damage could be avoided by not being hit (having a high Defensive Combat Value or DCV, which was subtracted from an attack roll + Offensive Combat Value or OCV of the attacker) or resisted by defenses (which were subtracted from the damage done by a successful attack). There were multiple additional rules for ways around basic defenses (armor piercing, penetrating, no normal defense, etc.) and ways to enhance defenses (damage reduction, hardening, etc.).


My favorite system still remains the one from Shadowrun, and I am still hoping to one day play a fantasy based system similar to it. The whole system was designed around not getting hit, and 'tanks' were better at staging down damage if you did get hit. Melee was about opposed rolls, armor reduced the severity and DC of damage (split into ballistic and impact). High con (toughness) gave you more dice to resist damage that did get through, every 2 successes staged it down 1 categery. Everyone had 10 'hitpoints', with damage separated into light, moderate and severe (deadly was 10 hp worth, if you got hit with that you really wanted to succeed in staging it down). Physical was separated from stun, and each category your wounds extended to (for both types) gave you a penalty to everything you did so getting hurt was not fun. More than 10 stun damage carried over into physical, more than 10 physical put you at similar to PFRPG (con score extra hp before you were DEAD, and someone had to stabilize you if you reached that area). Spells/abilities could reduce damage, healing was hard and not instant, wounds were wounds.

Reach really meant something... swords had a reach of one, pole-arms a reach of 2, and large creatures (i.e. trolls) had another +1. When fighting, you could decide to fight offensively (use reach to decrease your DC to hit) or defensively (use it to increase the opponent's DC) or a mix of both if you had more than +1 reach. Opposed rolls really made the combat exciting and gave a more realistic accounting of skilled fighters, and the bonuses from friends (or penalties for being outnumbered) really made it a very tactical combat system. The system was based on multiple D6 rolls (a must for opposed rolls), with usually skills determening the number of D6 you get to roll, various pools that refreshed each round allowing you to put extra dice into a particular blow or parry or damage soak, and critical fumbles being when you rolled as many 1's as your base skill was (putting a scaling risk factor in throwing too many extra pool dice into a roll).

Character creation was point based, and wealth did mean a lot too. On creation you prioritized stats, skills (which included combat skills), wealth, race and magic ability, and depending on where you placed each determined how much money you started with, how many points for stats and skills etc. You could have someone start with $1,000,000 and another character start with $1 and still have it balance out. Character advancement was slower (you earned karma, and used that to learn skills/raise stats at increasing costs or learn spells etc), and if you joined a party with a 'level 1' character you could still contribute effectively.

Of course there were downsides like counting many dice for every roll(I had 60+ d6's in my dice bag), it would need a fair bit of tweaking for a fantasy setting, and it wouldn't play the same as D20 games, but it would definitely make a fun game.


a certain superhero rpg had an alternative to hp it was damage saves you rolled your save aginst damage and if you took it it gave you a penalty on your next damage save if you failed by like 10 or more you were unconscious. it worked because sometimes you save and the bullet bounces off like your superheroness lets it. but you could still get a lucky shot with a bad save and be 1 hit ko'd


I didn't read the whole thread, just fyi.

I do believe hit points are made to counter realism. I have yet to find a system that can create heroically powerful characters without using HP. The problem with taking the realism approach is *bang* your dead. It doesn't matter if you have a strength 20,000 and full armor plating or a robe and cancer a bullet to the head is a bullet to the head.

Even in whitewolfs "vampires" I made it a staple of my character to have other vampires killed by one or two humans. Once I started doing this reliably the realism of them controlling the world went out the window, they're supposed to be strong right? I once had one shot into the vampire coma state by a child, with HP there's no chance of that, even if he's at like 3 health (1 HP maybe, that is min damage not counting things like DR).

Grand Lodge

I fiddled with the following system (semi inspired by the old Neverwinter Nights game)

100-76% Normal
75-51% Injured (-1 to all rolls)
50-26% Wounded (-2 to all rolls)
25% and lower critically wounded (-3 to all rolls)

Never implemented it.

This BITES the big one at lower levels... A fighter at 12hps can lose 10% of their combat efficiency by simply being losing 7 hitpoints... which is a slightly above normal blow from a weapon assuming the monster has SOME str bonus.

I just haven't figured out a way to make this work.

I like the condition track as well from SAGA but again... just doesnt seem to work for me, though thanks to the above post I am fooling around with it as Con + level + Fort save...

Anyways I love some of the concepts that are coming out.

I am also fooling with a lingering wound/penalty system for dropping below 0 hit points. Still not sure how to implement.

Grand Lodge

I jotted this down for an E6 setting I am fooling with... it will include armour providing DR (so armour will help with damage thresholds)... PEACH it for me will you all please?

Damage Thresholds and persistent conditions

Characters have a damage threshold beyond which wounds that affect their effectiveness are inflicted. Damage Threshold is the maximum value characters hit dice as of 1st level + Fortitude Save + level. Each time this threshold is exceeded and/or a character drops beneath 0 hitpoints, the character applies -1 to combat, skill and save rolls and loses 1 hp each day. This remains until treated.

As characters regain 1 hit point per level for a night of sleep the impact is not as much as this seems unless the character refuses to rest, however it is possible to also die of ones wounds if the persistent condition is serious enough and not treated.

For each wound that exceeds a characters threshold the character should note the total value of the wound. This is the value of healing that needs to be expended in a single spell/healing skill roll that does not cure hit points. For occasions when the character drops beneath 0, the wound value is double the amount of the hitpoints beneath 0. Healing skill will allow surgery to remove a persistent conditions. DC is 10 + total value of the wound and takes 1 hour for each check with multiple rolls possible until a failure roll (with normal results for failure) or the condition is cured. Take 10 is possible, but Take 20 is not.

Complete bed rest with treatment can also be used with half the hps a day going towards healing the condition and half hps a day (whether needed or not) going towards standard hitpoints.

Each condition must be healed individually.


Doc_Outlands wrote:

If we don't use HP, is it still D&D? (or, well, Pathfinder)

All games I know have some sort of hit point point system. Even White Wolf with its Health Level System is kind of like hit points.

If you are wanting a more "realistic" way of tracking health I recommend you check out 7th Sea. Their flesh wound and dramatic wound system is actually pretty pretty smart if you ask me.

But to answer your question. Without HP, it is not D&D. It is another game system.


Helaman wrote:

I fiddled with the following system (semi inspired by the old Neverwinter Nights game)

100-76% Normal
75-51% Injured (-1 to all rolls)
50-26% Wounded (-2 to all rolls)
25% and lower critically wounded (-3 to all rolls)

Never implemented it.

This BITES the big one at lower levels... A fighter at 12hps can lose 10% of their combat efficiency by simply being losing 7 hitpoints... which is a slightly above normal blow from a weapon assuming the monster has SOME str bonus.

It's because while HP increase, the penalties you've chosen are massive proportionally to the character's actual rolls.

There are a few ways to fix it, but none of them are especially intuitive. Probably the easiest way is to make it so that certain penalties only kick in at certain levels. I'm gonna think about this one for a while...

The absolute dirt simple approach is to not even touch damage penalties until 6th level or so.

Grand Lodge

what about the damage threshold stuff I have above?


I've always though of Hit Points as being battle skill. Actual phyical damage does happen till you run out of hit points. So when you take a hit for 15 damage that 15 damage you managed to avoid having harm you physically. A less person with less battle skill might take that damage dropping them to negatives.

Now a little house rule I use which is basically just fluff is you don't get physically hurt till hit points are reduced to equal or below you con stat. So if you have 15 CON and 30 hit points the you don't get blood till you hit points are 15 or less remaining. The rest of you hit points are you just avoiding taking the hit. It basically just fluff description as it has no impact on the game mechanics though.

I've considered a house rule where you take you Con stat and divide it by 4. So you have groups that correspond to Group 1 is -1, group 2 is -2 and so on. Any remainder goes to group. So is you have 18 CON stat divided by 4 is 4 each with 2 remaining. So group one is 6 hit point, and the other 3 or 4 hit points each. So you'd have you regular hit points plus you con stat in 4 groups. When you lose hit points and dip into you con stat you take negative to any D20 roll.

So for example say you have 10 hit points and 12 CON.

So you have 10 hp

Group1: 3 -1
Group2: 6 -2
Group3: 9 -3
Group4: 12 -4

So you take 12 damage that puts you hit points at zero and you 2 physical damage applying -1 penalty to any D20 roll. You take 5 more damage next round putting you in group 3 for a -3 penalty. You take 8 damage the next round and you drop to negative hit point and start to die and must roll for stabilization.

Just something I've thought of but never really tried because it seem more of hassle than it's worth on paper. Might slow the game down too much.

1 to 50 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Are hit points necessary? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.