I decided to branch this off of a different discussion to avoid derailment. I asked:
If hit points are purely meat points, which stat represents my character's general skill at dodging and parrying? Note how I'm asking about general skill, rather than natural dodgy-ness (Dex) or above-and-beyond defensive training (combat expertise).
To clarify, I really want PF as well as D&D to support a definitively meat point interpretation. One of my earliest threads on this very message board was a meat pointy-kind of explanation. But I can't really buy into it anymore, outside of one particular edition. So let's talk about this!
As an aside, HP have worked GREAT for Meat Points in my games for as long as I've been running them [something like 6 years now.]
That’s great! How do you represent the general parry and dodge skill that every adventurer accumulates during the course of his or her dangerous adventures? (I.e., the other side of the BAB coin.) Or does the lack of such representation not bother you?
I find this question relatively odd, because there is no points associated in the game with dodging and parrying, unlike with hit "points".
Thus my confusion; there are no 'parry points,' no counterpart to BAB to reflect gradually increasing defensive skill. There are AC-boosting options, but they either don't improve with level (full defense, fighting defensively) or are siloed away as feats or PrCs. Which would make sense in a level-less point buy game; but in PF and similar games, it's very inconsistent. Characters get gradually better at hitting things (BAB) just by surviving adventures -- heck, even NPC wizards who spend their lives studying in isolated towers become better at stabbing things than most of the world's martial-types after a few levels! -- but nobody gains any dodge/parry skill just by surviving adventures. Brando McAwesome the 20th level martial guy could be as easy to stab as a dirt farmer, barring armor and magical bling. Does this not bother you?
Either 3rd or PF (I don't recall which) did away with the "it is about luck, as much as actual damage" part of the definition for simplicity and consistency.
Must have been PF; I distinctly remember a hand-wavey explanation for hp in the 3e PHB. It involved a paladin and 'divine favor.'
I'm not replying to the rest of what you posted in response to my question because I don't think we're even conversationally on the same page yet. Also, I don't want this OP to be a mile long. ;)
As your BAB goes up, you get better at hitting people while fighting defensively.
But you never get better at defense, barring specialty options. But maybe this doesn’t bother you?
The idea that hit points is something other than health and vitality is purely fluff. There is no evidence (within the game mechanics) to suggest otherwise.
The terminology absolutely backs up the meat point interpretation, but the lack of a counterpart to BAB painfully undercuts a definitive one. If that doesn't count as a 'dissociated [non-]mechanic,' I ought to coin a term for it!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hit Points are a life meter just like in video games which is what I said in the other thread. The flavor is spread out between actual damage, minor scrapes, luck and so on for the sake of immersiveness. If you don't like the idea of someone surviving a full on fireball then maybe taking 40% of their hit points only resulted in minor burns, and the following crit from a great sword was a good hit, so now they are really worn down. The next hit represents them getting impaled through the heart.
It is actually better off left vague so each GM can flavor it however they want.
I think what you need to do is decide what you want hit points to represent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shield of Swings is a great feat, it doesn't scale but +4 shield bonus and a +4 to CMD is significant enough to remain relevant at higher levels.
It's also a full round action and has a penalty for using it (half damage).
@Tequila Sunrise, you just need more feats for defence that are something more than a +1.
a +1 doesn't give you an option for a defensive mode so doesn't really reflect the feeling of dodging and parrying.
It is actually better off left vague so each GM can flavor it however they want.
Here is where I disagree.
It is too vague for its own good. Let's say an orc crits with javelin and reduces the HP of the cleric down to 1-2 HP. Let's talk about flavor.Does it wound? When the next instance of damage comes, does the cleric succumb to the wound of the javelin attack or the new thing? Possibly both? Ok, pretty believable. Except if the next instance of damage never comes and they don't have the healing on hand yet, the cleric has this wound and it is not affecting him at all. The wound flounders on the edge of being fatal but not even being debilitating.
Worse is if we just say that it is not a wound. It missed, grazed him, whatever. Then other player misses with Alchemical fire, cleric is splashed by some of it, takes damage and falls over dying. So wait, what did the missed javelin do? Turned his skin into paper so that spots of burning oil caused him to fall over instantly?
I agree that hit points are like a video game life bar and that is exactly the reason why it sucks. Other systems have damage reduction mechanics to emulate something absorbing the damage. Some systems tie damage straight to ability scores so all damage reduces your capacity to fight. Hit points are okay if you pretend the first 5 to 8 levels of the game do no exist at all. At higher levels, you are all badass and do not care about the slightest dangers, so those can be written off easily. But then again, your low level wizard can step on a bear trap and drop to dying without actually losing his foot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
HP is also a reflection of stamina and fatigue... Still it's too vague... That's why I like Rolemaster broken arms and legs, bleed stacks, guts spilling out. Combatants flee and surrender a few rounds into combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that hit points are like a video game life bar and that is exactly the reason why it sucks.
To each their own, I'd say. I certainly don't think it sucks, though I can see why some have a problem with it.
Other systems have damage reduction mechanics to emulate something absorbing the damage.
This system does exactly that, though? Called "damage reduction"?
Some systems tie damage straight to ability scores so all damage reduces your capacity to fight.
That would suck terribly.
Hit points are okay if you pretend the first 5 to 8 levels of the game do no exist at all.
That makes no sense at all.
At higher levels, you are all badass and do not care about the slightest dangers, so those can be written off easily. But then again, your low level wizard can step on a bear trap and drop to dying without actually losing his foot.
Most of your problems are functionally "it's not realistic enough" (i.e. the wizard-in-a-bear-trap) but, just looking at the system, I encourage you to try and make it more functional.
Really quickly, here's the trick: it'll (most likely) suck.
There are a few systems that make it work out okay.
- Blue Rose is pretty good, though rolling for every attack is kind of "meh" and slows down gameplay a lot.
- Star Wars d20-or-Wounds/Vitality system is pretty good, but complicates things with two different tracks to watch out for.
- Called Shots is pretty good, but it complicates things really quickly, and can make a fight really swingy.
And that's pretty much all I've seen. All of those reflect what you're asking for to a point, but not entirely.
Bear trap taking off the leg would suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. I mean massively. But it's "realistic".
The main "problem" our current system has is that it goes from "YEAH~!" to "unconscious" with what is exactly a 1 hit point window in between.
This is by design: it keeps the game running, and keeps things relatively smooth, while acknowledging that your wounds catch up to you, while also keeping people potentially alive (if unconscious and/or dying) even once incapacitated.
The rest is, as it says, an abstraction. Why can the character keep going? I dunno. Game keeps running, though, and that's cool and fun.
Losing your foot at first level because the GM used a fiendish trap is a remnant from older editions that I, for one, am glad to leave behind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Death spiral mechanics, where characters get less effective with every injury, might be realistic, but they're very much counter to a genre where heroes commonly rally and win fights after even serious injuries.
And, more to the point, they're generally considered not fun, since once you start losing, you keep losing (even more badly), but you need to play the fight out to the end.
Remember as a kid when you were playing Monopoly and it was obvious about an hour into the game who was going to win, but it still took three more hours to finish the game unless Mom sent everyone off to bed before that? That wasn't fun then, and it's no more fun now. From a dramatic standpoint, you need a chance of heroic reversals. From a ludic perspective, you want to minimize the tedium.
The death spiral not only doesn't solve any problems, it makes problems worse.
It is actually better off left vague so each GM can flavor it however they want.
Here is where I disagree.
It is too vague for its own good. Let's say an orc crits with javelin and reduces the HP of the cleric down to 1-2 HP. Let's talk about flavor.
Does it wound? When the next instance of damage comes, does the cleric succumb to the wound of the javelin attack or the new thing? Possibly both? Ok, pretty believable. Except if the next instance of damage never comes and they don't have the healing on hand yet, the cleric has this wound and it is not affecting him at all. The wound flounders on the edge of being fatal but not even being debilitating.Worse is if we just say that it is not a wound. It missed, grazed him, whatever. Then other player misses with Alchemical fire, cleric is splashed by some of it, takes damage and falls over dying. So wait, what did the missed javelin do? Turned his skin into paper so that spots of burning oil caused him to fall over instantly?
I agree that hit points are like a video game life bar and that is exactly the reason why it sucks. Other systems have damage reduction mechanics to emulate something absorbing the damage. Some systems tie damage straight to ability scores so all damage reduces your capacity to fight. Hit points are okay if you pretend the first 5 to 8 levels of the game do no exist at all. At higher levels, you are all badass and do not care about the slightest dangers, so those can be written off easily. But then again, your low level wizard can step on a bear trap and drop to dying without actually losing his foot.
I agree in part, it's not codified enough or it needs less codification. Too pedestrian and doesn't do either job very well.
This is why I said on a previous thread that if you want to have less codification create feats and spells, which reflect that HP doesn't equal meat points like a 'luck' feat that heals hit points.
As a counterargument one could say that conditions echo that sense of crippling injury even though its temporary, be it being staggered, stunned, dazed, deafened or bleeding all over the place.
Death spiral mechanics, where characters get less effective with every injury, might be realistic, but they're very much counter to a genre where heroes commonly rally and win fights after even serious injuries.
And, more to the point, they're generally considered not fun, since once you start losing, you keep losing (even more badly), but you need to play the fight out to the end.
Remember as a kid when you were playing Monopoly and it was obvious about an hour into the game who was going to win, but it still took three more hours to finish the game unless Mom sent everyone off to bed before that? That wasn't fun then, and it's no more fun now. From a dramatic standpoint, you need a chance of heroic reversals. From a ludic perspective, you want to minimize the tedium.
The death spiral not only doesn't solve any problems, it makes problems worse.
Maybe it's the other way around. No penalties for the fatigue and hits you take means you dig in and grind the combat out for another hour or so of game time... Fun fun fun.
Rather than learning to withdraw and comeback, and make use of tactics and environment.
The amount of hit points you have represents both the amount of damage you can take and your ability to reduce the damage you take - by skill, luck, divine favour, or something of the sort.
Losing hit points always represents an injury of some kind - otherwise it wouldn't make much sense to drink a healing potion.
A character who's lost half their hit points should look much the same whether they're level 1 or level 10 - bloodied but not beaten.
Of course this raises the question of why it now takes a lot more potions of Cure Light Wounds to heal the same level of injury - but they're divine magic and you probably need a lot of that to heal a True Champion.
|
For those catch-it-all values in the d20 system (HPs representint meat points, fatigue and will to fight, AC representing armor defence, shield or weapon block/parry, dodge etc.) you have to pretty much rework the game from the gorund up.
HPs split in Vitality/Wounds is a first step. But then you have a rather big issue with the disparity between attack and defence ability during the level progression and its effects n character's resilience in combat, even moreso for criticals and whatnots, all distributed among the different melee oriented or less than able classes.
Pathfinder has its own ideas for this, in one of the Ultimate hardcovers IIRC.
So, you go for Armor as DR as a second step. That alone prevents much abuse of the V/W system and complements it nicely. But it does exacerbate the divergent progression of attack and defence over the levels.
Again, Pathfinder has its own subsystem already developed, in the same hardcover as before.
So, you go for a level and class based defence progression, maybe split in two or three values: parry with equipment (mostly weapons) dependent bonus, block with equipment (mostly shields) dependent bonus, and dodge, which is already its own bonus type.
This gives you the option of developing active defence stances, with their own feats and stuff.
There's some basic stuff, mostly concepts and math progression in Green Ronin's Advanced Gamemaster's Manual.
And once you implement one of the above subsystems, you find that you kinda need to integrate it with the other two, otherwise the game is blatantly unbalanced.
At the end of the line you have a different system, which makes for a very different game, with very different results and expectations for combat situations, which is more simulative but no less wonky.
Not worth the hassle. I tried, and the results were interesting but absolutely not worth it. Slower, less intuitive, almost too much gritty.
If you want to keep it simple, even if somewhat simplicistic, keep it as it is.
If you need something more detailed and realistic, look for another ruleset altogether.
Spelling horrors offered by my tablet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If hit points are purely meat points, which stat represents my character's general skill at dodging and parrying? Note how I'm asking about general skill, rather than natural dodgy-ness (Dex) or above-and-beyond defensive training (combat expertise).
To clarify, I really want PF as well as D&D to support a definitively meat point interpretation. One of my earliest threads on this very message board was a meat pointy-kind of explanation. But I can't really buy into it anymore, outside of one particular edition. So let's talk about this!
I find this question relatively odd, because there is no points associated in the game with dodging and parrying, unlike with hit "points".
Thus my confusion; there are no 'parry points,' no counterpart to BAB to reflect gradually increasing defensive skill. There are AC-boosting options, but they either don't improve with level (full defense, fighting defensively) or are siloed away as feats or PrCs. Which would make sense in a level-less point buy game; but in PF and similar games, it's very inconsistent. Characters get gradually better at hitting things (BAB) just by surviving adventures -- heck, even NPC wizards who spend their lives studying in isolated towers become better at stabbing things than most of the world's martial-types after a few levels! -- but nobody gains any dodge/parry skill just by surviving adventures. Brando McAwesome the 20th level martial guy could be as easy to stab as a dirt farmer, barring armor and magical bling. Does this not bother you?
Not really, because, again, you're approaching this from the "wrong"* angle, here.
All of it is based off your ability scores at it's base.
But hit points don't represent a "skill".
Feats and skill points do.
You want to be "skilled" at being tougher? Toughness feat (which happens to increase your hit points), great fortitude, endurance, die hard, etc.
You want to be "skilled" at dodging and parrying? The various feats (and skills) that I mentioned before in the other thread (too lazy/sick to retype right now).
If you want something that auto-scales, you've your saves which do both (fortitude for hardiness, reflex for avoidance).
The main disconnect, I think, is not hit points, but that your BAB is tied to leveling up. This means your skill at hitting things gets better automatically, no matter who you are.
That was always a bit of a disconnect, but it's the only place where "skill" in a specific combat-related thing automatically increases in the game.
(Point in fact, I tend to think that attacks should be skill-based, myself.)
For dodging and parrying, you either have feats, or magic items. BAB aside, it's similar for attacking. The main "trick" relative to all of this, is that AC gets "enhancement" from several angles: natural, armor, shield, deflection, etc.; attack has far fewer options available in-game, and thus relies on the presence of BAB.
But look at Star Wars d20 (the Revised Core Rulebook), or Blue Rose - you might like those a lot as variant options.
* "Wrong" being a "wrong from how its applied within the game" not from a "you're ideas are bad and should feel bad" angle.
In my own games, characters get a scaling bonus to AC relative to their level [Natural Armor] and BAB [Dodge].
Hey, great minds think alike! By the end of my 3.5 years, I had written up one of those 'innate bonus' variants for the same reasons.
Hit Points are a life meter just like in video games which is what I said in the other thread.
I suspect that if video games were more of a thing in '74(?), Gygax would have made the same comparison. As I understand it, he didn't even think that hp needed an explanation until players started asking him "But what do they mean?!" Like AC, hp were a mechanic ported over from naval wargames, and Gygax didn't care what it all meant in the game world. If you had hp, you could keep adventuring; if you didn't have hp, you were dead.
Though I personally don't give a hoot what Gygax thought about this sort of thing, he made a comment in the 1e DMG that meat points are 'preposterous.'
It is actually better off left vague so each GM can flavor it however they want.
I can't flavor hp however I want though -- at least not satisfactorily. If I flavor them consistently as luck/skill/whatever, the terminology becomes really inconsistent and all kinds of situations make it even weirder. If I flavor them consistently as meat, there's a big gaping hole in the rules --> game world translation.
The only real options that the game leaves me are 1) flavor depending on each particular instance of hp loss, or 2) just don't think about it. And I find both of these woefully unsatisfactory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you like that, you might want to consider this progression. Maybe make it a template then modify it for your own purposes.
@Tequila Sunrise, you just need more feats for defence that are something more than a +1.
That's...terribly unsatisfactory IMO. If basic attack skill (BAB) is automatic, defensive skill should not require special opt-in choices. I'm glad it works for you, but for me it's terribly dissonant.
@Tequila Sunrise, you just need more feats for defence that are something more than a +1.That's...terribly unsatisfactory IMO. If basic attack skill (BAB) is automatic, defensive skill should not require special opt-in choices. I'm glad it works for you, but for me it's terribly dissonant.
Terribly unsatisfactory?...someone get me a box of tissues.
In my D&D 3.5e days I used something called a Class Defense Bonus. We abandoned it when we crossed over to Pathfinder as it was too much work for the GM. And it changed too many other things in the game...the dreaded butterfly effect.
HP is also a reflection of stamina and fatigue... Still it's too vague... That's why I like Rolemaster broken arms and legs, bleed stacks, guts spilling out. Combatants flee and surrender a few rounds into combat.
I've never played RM or any hit-location kind of game, so I can't comment on how much I like it, but I absolutely respect game designers who have the cajones to deviate from traditional D&Disms.
Tequila if you are not impressed by this may the gods of Golarion show mercy
Class Defense Bonus
1/2 BAB dodge bonus to AC. You don't receive this bonus if you are denied you Dex bonus
Armour as DR. 1/2 Armour bonus (round down) = DR/-. New armour bonus = old armour bonus - DR/-
Natural AC as DR. 1/2 Nat Armour bonus (round down) = DR/-. New Nat armour bonus = old Nat armour bonus - DR/-
Shield, luck, deflection etc. bonuses add to AC as normal
Magical pluses adds to regular AC only
Spells that provide an Armour bonus are also at 1/2 AC, 1/2 DR
Not really, because, again, you're approaching this from the "wrong"* angle, here.
* "Wrong" being a "wrong from how its applied within the game" not from a "you're ideas are bad and should feel bad" angle.
Wait, so your posts have been trying to explain how the game works, and what different mechanics mean? Er, thanks I guess, but I've been playing for about 20 years now and I have a pretty good grasp of the assumptions and various interpretations. My purpose in this thread is to find out how you make meat points work, notably in PF and D&D.
The main disconnect, I think, is not hit points, but that your BAB is tied to leveling up. This means your skill at hitting things gets better automatically, no matter who you are.
That was always a bit of a disconnect, but it's the only place where "skill" in a specific combat-related thing automatically increases in the game.
Ah, so your issue is related to mine, but coming from the opposite direction. Brando McAwesome the 20th level martial guy being as easy to stab as a dirt farmer doesn't both you, but Bartleby the Bookworm being able to punch his way through a platoon of 1st level goons just for being a 20th level wizard does. Am I off the mark?
(Point in fact, I tend to think that attacks should be skill-based, myself.)
It would certainly be more consistent, which is a big plus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really, because, again, you're approaching this from the "wrong"* angle, here.
* "Wrong" being a "wrong from how its applied within the game" not from a "you're ideas are bad and should feel bad" angle.
Wait, so your posts have been trying to explain how the game works, and what different mechanics mean? Er, thanks I guess, but I've been playing for about 20 years now and I have a pretty good grasp of the assumptions and various interpretations. My purpose in this thread is to find out how you make meat points work, notably in PF and D&D.
As have I. I'm not saying your grasp is wrong, but rather the underlying premise that is "hit points is a skill, where's the related one" is flawed.
Hit points aren't a skill - they're a function of representing the fact that your body, by virtue of being hardcore awesome, is much harder to hurt.
Again, read the lower segment - it's just the angle from which you're approaching it.
The fact that you gain hit points as you gain skills is incidental, and a basic function of the leveling class system.
Think of it this way - as I grow up, I also go through school to get my education. The fact that I get an education is incidental to the fact that I grow up - both happen at the same time, and one is reliant on the other, but they're not the same thing, merely parallel growths.
This can be seen by virtue of the fact that many lack the same education.
The main disconnect, I think, is not hit points, but that your BAB is tied to leveling up. This means your skill at hitting things gets better automatically, no matter who you are.
That was always a bit of a disconnect, but it's the only place where "skill" in a specific combat-related thing automatically increases in the game.
Ah, so your issue is related to mine, but coming from the opposite direction. Brando McAwesome the 20th level martial guy being as easy to stab as a dirt farmer doesn't both you, but Bartleby the Bookworm being able to punch his way through a platoon of 1st level goons just for being a 20th level wizard does. Am I off the mark?
Not necessarily (in fact, that could be rather awesome) - just that it's automatically so, which is where your issue with it comes in.
The "problem" isn't really all that much of one, unless it bothers you, but the "source" of the bother means finding out what's going on. Where is the character getting more "skilled"?
- skill points
- attack
- caster level {caster's only}
- feats
- class features
Where are they becoming "tougher"?
- hit points
- saves
The former allows the character to do stuff.
The latter allows the character to be super-human.
If there was a flaw in the system (which, to you, is represented by the not-automatic-defense-progression) it the fact that AC is not an automatic function of skill (only ability and chosen feats) while attack is.
But hit points, i.e. "meat points" aren't meant to be a "skill" in PF - they're meant to be representative of how powerful you are.
(Point in fact, I tend to think that attacks should be skill-based, myself.)
It would certainly be more consistent, which is a big plus.
And that's what I mean. I think you'd find yourself mostly satisfied if you took away BAB (and probably caster level) and AC, translated that into skills (appropriate for certain classes), and proceeded from there, eliminating some of the magic item progression.
... oooooorrrrrrrrrrr... make the AC scaling as part of the natural progression of the character growth instead of a function of magic items and feats.
That's why I linked the automatic bonus progression progression in my post - it allows you to look at that and select what you like.
For the record, you could be rocking a 38 AC (before DEX modifiers) by the time you're rocking a +26 attack (before STR modifiers) in that system without even really trying [armor, shield, nAC; full plate, heavy shield (choose mithril and/or piecemeal armor for maximum effect and fighter armor training for a completion bonus)], and ignoring all other magical buffs or feats.
That's not too bad a comparison.
But the trick is to make it work for you and your group.
That's the reason I suggested you look at Blue Rose and Star Wars d20 (the Revised Core Rulebook). You might like their systems better, as they have bonus scaling progression baked in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify, I really want PF as well as D&D to support a definitively meat point interpretation. One of my earliest threads on this very message board was a meat pointy-kind of explanation. But I can't really buy into it anymore, outside of one particular edition. So let's talk about this!
I'm pointing out that this^ wasn't me during this last long exchange. The above quote was from the OP, thus it should read,
To clarify, I really want PF as well as D&D to support a definitively meat point interpretation. One of my earliest threads on this very message board was a meat pointy-kind of explanation. But I can't really buy into it anymore, outside of one particular edition. So let's talk about this!
So let me get this straight, you want a system where every hit point of damage represents a piece of your character being chopped away? And you don't see how this clashes with the heroic fantasy theme? Or how it's simply unworkable for anything more than a couple of fights?
It's workable. It's not workable without changing a whole bunch of other things about Pathfinder. You can't just change the interpretation and keep the same rules and have it make any sense.
Ever increasing hp don't really make any sense in that interpretation for example, so you need some other way to justify being progressively harder to kill.
You don't need to 'chop away' part of a character for 'meat points as HP' to work. It's not about losing parts of flesh, it's about that flesh taking damage. Gashes, bruised and battered [and maybe cracked] bones, scraped [or in extreme cases punctured] organs.Sure they make sense. The higher your HP the tougher and more f$&+ing badass you get, being damaged less by the same Damage so it takes more of it to beat you down and break you.It's workable. It's not workable without changing a whole bunch of other things about Pathfinder. You can't just change the interpretation and keep the same rules and have it make any sense.
Ever increasing hp don't really make any sense in that interpretation for example, so you need some other way to justify being progressively harder to kill.
To the point where you're far physically tougher and more f@~!ing badass than something like a rhino? Or a stone statue, for that matter.
What does that mean anyway? If the blow that hits a 1st level character for 6 hp and nearly kills him cuts deep into his side, does the 20th level character hit by the same blow get the same cut, but just doesn't bleed as much or go into shock or isn't as affected in someother way? Or does he actually resist the damage so it doesn't cut as deep?
Plus at that point, if you're really "being damaged less by the same Damage", why does magic healing also heal you less?If it works for you, go for it. For me, it's doesn't bother me any less than the default mishmash of physical and non-physical damage.
You may continue the conversation, now.
Why I have difficulty seeing HP as straight up Meat Points.
A swing with a greatclub for 20 damage will turn a level 1 character into paste, while a lvl 20 character would only get bruised.
Is the swing different relative to the HP of the character? Does it crush the skull of the lvl1, but against a lvl20 it just bumps an elbow? Theoretically nothing changed about the swing. But the characters are also still just made of the same meat, aren't they?
---
Edit: Basically for HP = Meat Points to work for me, HP would never scale.
Another Suggestion if one wants hits to matter in the long run more than a couple points of penalty from unchained, would be to look at Star Wars Sagas condition track and find a way to possible use it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On that note...
To the point where you're far physically tougher and more f@~!ing badass than something like a rhino? Or a stone statue, for that matter.
YES.
What does that mean anyway? If the blow that hits a 1st level character for 6 hp and nearly kills him cuts deep into his side, does the 20th level character hit by the same blow get the same cut, but just doesn't bleed as much or go into shock or isn't as affected in someother way? Or does he actually resist the damage so it doesn't cut as deep?
Plus at that point, if you're really "being damaged less by the same Damage", why does magic healing also heal you less?If it works for you, go for it. For me, it's doesn't bother me any less than the default mishmash of physical and non-physical damage.
Here is but one example. Sword cuts. Goliath bleeds. It doesn't phase him much, because daggum, is he hardcore.
Gee, sure does look like those hurt a lot. But, you know, what crushes stone, casually, doesn't really crush him, despite the fact that it hurts a lot.
A case of DR (Doomsday) and hp (both) fighting against each other.
To high-key? Sure. Okay.
Batman v. the mutant leader. In that case, he's got Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist, Combat Expertise, Crane Wing, and Dodge as well as making a Called Shots. But, you know, Batman's a super-hero. He's always been a super-hero. He wouldn't be so banal as to be punked out by a first level rogue attacking him with a sap from behi- oh, wait. Huh, I guess he gets better over time. (Incidentally, while, yes, those are two different series, if you actually watch TAS, you will watch his ability to take a beating - and skill at delivering one - increase there as well.)
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@OP: I don't know what thread you came from, so I'm just going with what you said in the OP of this one.
HP being "meat points" does not require that there be some other stat that represents a level-scaling ability to evade things. Or to put it another way, the lack of any other stat dealing with level-scaling evasiveness neither proves nor causes HP to fill that role.
My understanding of Pathfinder is that HP is meat, and there's no stat representing increased evasive ability. (I consider this a flaw of the system.)
As far as your thread title of "making meat work", it already does work. In fact, there's evidence of it already being that way baked into the system. (I'll spare you the details, unless you'd like more explanation.)
The only "issues" with HP=Meat are:
1) Someone (like you or I) might dislike that HP=Meat leaves the system without a level-scaling evasiveness mechanic, and
2) Some people dislike the idea of nonmagical elements (such as HP) reaching beyond the "realistic" and into the "fantastic". That is, HP=Meat would mean that a high-level character became more "meaty" than a real person, and some folks don't like for that to happen without magic. (It's a preference for one of two types of fantasy that I've talked about elsewhere.)
But if you can get past those two issues, HP=Meat already totally works.
EDIT: Added a link.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@thejeff—Perhaps I can help with the healing thing.
Suppose you have a plastic cord, about a quarter-inch thick. With a sharp knife using X amount of pressure, it takes about Y time to cut through it.
Now, suppose I have some sort of advanced cable: it's also a quarter-inch thick, but is made of a bundle of tiny, thin fibers. Thanks to being a special material, each of those tiny, thin fibers is just as strong as your plastic cord (it takes Y time at X pressure for a sharp knife to cut through just one of the fibers in my cable).
So someone swings a knife, twice. One swing cuts through your quarter-inch-thick cord, while the other cuts just one of the fibers in my cable.
Both items have sustained the same amount of damage, yet mine has not been destroyed. That's damage versus HP.
With healing, it's like the healing spell is able to reconnect (for example) 1d8+1 strands. If all you've even got is the one thick, crappy cord then that's going to be a complete repair. If instead you've got a dense cable made of dozens of strands, repairing 1d8+1 of those strands could leave plenty of remaining damage—and yet simultaneously leave a finished product that's tougher than your plastic cord.
Does that help?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My thoughts exactly, Seerow.
I'm okay if you want to say that your meatiness surpasses all sorts of realism, and a mace to the face that would tickle the brainmeats of a lower level person only leaves a small scratch on yours (despite the blow being as hard and accurate as it is to the lower level person).
But if that's the case, I'd want more mundane badassery in the system. Sufficiently high jump checks to get a fly speed (as in Legend) for example.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except we've got another mechanism to reflect "hard to damage" - DR. And ways to bypass that.
If it really is that your meat is getting tougher, then it would be reasonable that weapons that bypass the toughness of things like stone and metal would also bypass meaty toughness.
Stone and metal don't have DR, they have hardness. ;)
And you know what? They also have HP. And they have different amounts of HP per inch from one another. So even if you have the ability to bypass hardness (such as with an adamantine weapon), there's still a difference in the relative ease/difficulty of destroying different things, and that difference exists in the mechanic of hit points, completely independent of hardness. There's not a single, universal HP/inch for all materials, with their varying levels of resistance to destruction being represented solely by hardness.
Why can't meat be the same?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My thoughts exactly, Seerow.
I'm okay if you want to say that your meatiness surpasses all sorts of realism, and a mace to the face that would tickle the brainmeats of a lower level person only leaves a small scratch on yours (despite the blow being as hard and accurate as it is to the lower level person).
But if that's the case, I'd want more mundane badassery in the system. Sufficiently high jump checks to get a fly speed (as in Legend) for example.
Indeed! ;)