Alternative to hit points? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Alternative to hit points? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
mortenson
10-08-05, 08:14 PM I really dont like the way that the Hit Point system works in D&D. I hate the fact how an old seasoned adventurer has more than a younger stronger counterpart. Or that automatically wizards always have to be frail and weak, or some 3 foot halfling warrior can absorb more damage than a human rougue. Has anyone experimented with another system or alternative method of hit points? and how did it fair for you?
Seeker95
10-08-05, 08:24 PM Has anyone experimented with another system or alternative method of hit points?Yeah. It's called GURPS. It works great. It just ain't D&D.
caeruleus
10-08-05, 09:46 PM You could also try the injury system variant in Unearthed Arcana, also available here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/injury.htm).
Novacat
10-08-05, 09:51 PM I've played with a Vitality/Wounds system.

It's similar to hit points, in fact, your vitality is equal to what your hit points would be. Wounds is equal to your Constitution score (not bonus, the actual score). When you take damage, you take it off of your vitality first, and then your wounds. Vitality represents nicks and bruises, while wounds represents serious damage (broken bones, large gashes, etc). When you have -10 wounds, you are dead.

Now the difference between this and normal HP systems is that when someone makes a critical hit, it is not multiplied, but rather applied directly to wounds. This system causes two things: low level characters are more hardy, and high level characters are much easier to kill, since one good critical hit can take out a 20th level fighter. (Also, weapons with x3 crits added 1d6 to the crit damage, and x4 crits added 2d6.)
Lina_Inverse
10-08-05, 10:13 PM I really dont like the way that the Hit Point system works in D&D. I hate the fact how an old seasoned adventurer has more than a younger stronger counterpart. Or that automatically wizards always have to be frail and weak, or some 3 foot halfling warrior can absorb more damage than a human rougue. Has anyone experimented with another system or alternative method of hit points? and how did it fair for you?

Theres some complaints that make sense.
But yours do not.
Wizards are frail because its fantasy.
halflings can absorb damage as humans because of game balence.
and seasoned adventurers take more damage because they fight mightier foes.
mortenson
10-09-05, 04:24 AM I could care less about game balance Lina_Inverse. I care about realism. The world we run is a very low fantasy setting more akinned to your classical Lankmar(spelling) setting than it is a Tolkeinesque D&D one. Frankly your reply doesnt make much sense other than the fact that they are accepted norms of Dungeons and Dragons. If you want to go by the book on every single thing then thats fine, If I choose not to thats my business. I dont need a lecture from you because I want to play the game differently. :mad:
mortenson
10-09-05, 04:26 AM Thanks guys I will have to give those a shot.
Yabanjin
10-09-05, 05:29 AM In a recent campaign we tried this:

Vitality/wound system presented in the UA. Additionally, a character can survive up to (down to?) their Con. pts in the negative. Eg. a 14 con could survive down to -14 hps of damage. This just makes more sense to me than an arbitrary number like -10.

Massive damage equals Con + character level or HD. This has provided a couple of instances where the mage got taken out early and two instances where the cleric rolled a successful crit (w/warhammer) and took out the evening's session's BBEG in one shot. I was kind of perturbed when this happened both times, but it was pretty cool - and from the player's perspective: totally fantastic (of course). In most of the major battles, characters were down to low hps - it translated into some really exciting games! However, it made encounters, almost all encounters, quite dangerous - but the players loved the excitement. And they've requested we repeat the system in the next game... . Ultimately, this system makes a little more sense to me than the standard rules.

Incidentily, we also used DR and Def rolls rather than simple AC. I'd like to say its worked well, but its been a pain in the tail-end for me, the DM. The best part of the Def rolls is continuous call for dice rolls - people love rolling dice... .

hope this helps.
Luega
10-09-05, 07:41 AM Well, the Injury sustem from UA, as someone already mentioned, looks quite interesting. However, I've never had the opportunity to actually try it out myself. Any of you have any experiences with it? It looks like it has potential.

Edit: It seems like it would make combat more dangerous/unpredictable. You don't have any concrete measure of how much damage your character is able to withstand. Kinda like in a novel or a movie where even a lucky blow from a lowly orc has the potential to disable a mighty hero. It makes the PC's think twice before charging into every encounter; "OK guys, is this fight really necesary?". I really like this thought.
Seeker95
10-09-05, 10:44 AM I could care less about game balance Lina_Inverse. I care about realism. [...] I dont need a lecture from you because I want to play the game differently.You don't want to play the game differently.
You want to play a different game.

Don't get mad at Lina for explaining to you what D&D is, just because you want everything that it isn't. You want wizards as hardy as fighters and 20th level warriors to die as easily as 1st level warriors? Play GURPS.
Jagyr Ebonwood
10-09-05, 11:42 AM In a recent campaign we tried this:
<snip>
Massive damage equals Con + character level or HD. This has provided a couple of instances where the mage got taken out early and two instances where the cleric rolled a successful crit (w/warhammer) and took out the evening's session's BBEG in one shot. I was kind of perturbed when this happened both times, but it was pretty cool - and from the player's perspective: totally fantastic (of course). In most of the major battles, characters were down to low hps - it translated into some really exciting games! However, it made encounters, almost all encounters, quite dangerous - but the players loved the excitement. And they've requested we repeat the system in the next game... . Ultimately, this system makes a little more sense to me than the standard rules.

Woah...that's a little extreme...at second level, ~14 damage means save or die?
The massive damage rule doesn't become standard until you get to level 30 something...
This variant makes your game much more lethal for everyone...
dngnb8
10-09-05, 12:09 PM Hit points are not just the amount of blood. Its a balance of experience, skill, and injury, fatigue. This is why a wisened veteran has high values.

Many people think the damage inflicted is strictly body damage, you have bled this much, you have only this much blood left before you die. That isnt the case.

Its a matter fatigue, blood, soreness from weapons impact, concussing, etc.

Its a measure of the whole, not just the health.
caeruleus
10-09-05, 12:30 PM You don't want to play the game differently.
You want to play a different game.

Don't get mad at Lina for explaining to you what D&D is, just because you want everything that it isn't. You want wizards as hardy as fighters and 20th level warriors to die as easily as 1st level warriors? Play GURPS.

Oh, give me a break. D&D is not some sort of eternal immutable Platonic Form. The people who have worked at TSR/WotC over the years weren't scientists trying to figure out what "true" D&D is. They even publish variations on the rules, and label those variations "D&D".

The National League and the American League use some different rules, but they both play baseball.
Seeker95
10-09-05, 12:36 PM The National League and the American League use some different rules, but they both play baseball.They both require that the batter hit the ball into safe territory.
They both require that three outs ends that team's "at bat".
They both require three strikes = "you're out".
They both require that the runner touch each base, in order.
That the American League has a designated hitter is not fundamental to the game mechanics. And in a game between the two, (The All-Star Game), the American League can use the designated hitter, while the National League cannot, and they can still be playing the same game.

What mortenson is proposing is so fundamentally different that it cannot be used in a game unless everyone is using it. You also could not take your character into the game he is proposing and just start playing. And you certainly wouldn't want to if your 17th level fighter could be bested by the 2nd level fighter simply because the 2nd level fighter is stronger.

He doesn't want D&D. He wants GURPS. GURPS does not "scale" in advancement. Your chance of dying from a single hit on day 1 is just about the same as your chance of dying from a single hit on day 100.
Lina_Inverse
10-09-05, 12:49 PM I could care less about game balance Lina_Inverse. I care about realism. The world we run is a very low fantasy setting more akinned to your classical Lankmar(spelling) setting than it is a Tolkeinesque D&D one. Frankly your reply doesnt make much sense other than the fact that they are accepted norms of Dungeons and Dragons. If you want to go by the book on every single thing then thats fine, If I choose not to thats my business. I dont need a lecture from you because I want to play the game differently. :mad:

D&D is a game, thus game balence and playability trump anything. Realism is secondary to fun. It is also a fantasy game, therefore BY DEFINITION realism can NEVER apply. Magic is anathema to realism, slaying dragons and meeting the gods is not realistic. Bringing in a realism trumps game balence arguement is illogical. Because it is a GAME ment to be FUN, it is NOT fun when anything but a wizard is impossible to play at anything beyond the weakest stages of the game.

Play rolemaster if you want realism, D&D is ment to be fun not realistic.
Dragonsblood
10-09-05, 01:46 PM If you want to get rid of HP, you'd have to completely revamp almost every spell, item, and half the class abilities.

I really liked dngnb8's explanation. I think your problem is more a matter of perspective. If you want the game to seem more realistic, flavor hits and damage differently. Instead of a blow by a warhammer breaking a rib, make it so the PC pulls a muscle in his arm after he deflects the hammer with his shield. You could even go as far as renaming HP as fatigue and the last 5 HP or so is actual damage taken. Every hit would be a difficult parry or dodge, making the PC more and more tired and sore (and if you've ever really had a tough workout, this is not something you can rest off in a day). Healing spells would heal a combination of wounds and fatigue/soreness.
caeruleus
10-09-05, 02:06 PM They both require that the batter hit the ball into safe territory.
They both require that three outs ends that team's "at bat".
They both require three strikes = "you're out".
They both require that the runner touch each base, in order.
That the American League has a designated hitter is not fundamental to the game mechanics. And in a game between the two, (The All-Star Game), the American League can use the designated hitter, while the National League cannot, and they can still be playing the same game.

Whether or not you use hit points, some variant like the injury system in UA, or something else, you're base stats are still the sum of 3d6, you roll a d20 add a modifier and compare to a target number, etc, etc.

What mortenson is proposing is so fundamentally different that it cannot be used in a game unless everyone is using it.

The same could be said of many other game mechanics and variants thereof. Perhaps I'm missing your point.

You also could not take your character into the game he is proposing and just start playing. And you certainly wouldn't want to if your 17th level fighter could be bested by the 2nd level fighter simply because the 2nd level fighter is stronger.

It's a very rare character that I would allow to "just start playing" in my campaign. I'd want to look it over and change what needs to be changed to reflect the rules I use. This is the case even when playing strictly "by the book", because other factors may not make the character fit.

And if I wanted to play in such a campaign, I'd do so with an understanding of what it entailed. I don't agree with all the houserules of the DMs I play with, but I still agree to play with them. All I ask is that I know about them beforehand.

He doesn't want D&D. He wants GURPS.

I'm more inclined to believe him when we're talking about what he wants. GURPS and D&D have other differences.
caeruleus
10-09-05, 02:08 PM Realism is secondary to fun.

Unless someone has more fun by making certain aspects of the game more realistic in their eyes.
Scipion Emilien
10-09-05, 02:41 PM Try to change the massive damage treshold, or adjust it by critter you see fit.
Milandros
10-09-05, 03:03 PM The problem with realism is that it doesn't make a particularly good game. For realism you need a significantly different combat and HP system. First of all, most proper "hits" should be either devastating, even with a dagger (how many people continue to fight when stabbed in the gut?), or draining (blood loss from wounds generally lasts far longer than mosts fights), or inconsequential (bruises, minor grazes). Some sort of andreneline system would be needed to simulate how fight/flight reflexes can temporarily increase a body's ability. Armour should generally act as damage reduction, to a varying degree depending on hit location. Hit locations are vital - after all, being punched in the forearm and being punched on the head are very different things. Armour damage must be tracked. Hit locations are necessary for Armour/damage reduction calculations as well - plate mail won't protect your head if you're not wearing your helmet, and if you are you probably ought to have a vastly reduced field of vision.
And so on, and so on, and so on.... the list of needed rule changes is somewhat larger than the PHB.
After the fight is just as bad. You'll have to roll to see if the cut you got from that bandit yesterday is festering. No healing magics, not potions, just natural healing - which in D&D terms is *way* too fast. A serious cut across your shoulder could take months to heal properly and quite probably would leave you with permanent effects.

I think what most people want isn't realism but believeability - a coherent, believeable world where you're not suddenly shocked out of your suspension of disbelief. For the type of campaing you've described I can understand why you might find the HP system a bit too simple, for without the other complications of magic and monstrous mayhem you probably need more focus on the basics. The vitality/wound point system may be a good option. ALternatively, do look at other systems, whether it's the Hero system for heroic fantasy (it seperates stun and body damage) or GURPS, or Rolemaster, or any of the many other good options. It might be easier then trying to change too many rules, which often has consequences elsewhere.

Certainly with D&D I always rule that damage which simply can't be applied to HPs as close dodges, minor grazes, pulled muscles etc is handled differently. Truly massive falls, for example, can kill anything, no matter how high the HPs. No fighter falls from orbit and bounces.
Shike
10-09-05, 03:44 PM Hit points are not just the amount of blood. Its a balance of experience, skill, and injury, fatigue. This is why a wisened veteran has high values.

Many people think the damage inflicted is strictly body damage, you have bled this much, you have only this much blood left before you die. That isnt the case.

Its a matter fatigue, blood, soreness from weapons impact, concussing, etc.

Its a measure of the whole, not just the health.

Yes. HP are a measure of how well someone takes damage, lasts in combat. Since there is no system for making con rolls for fatigue in combat (ie, in combat no one gets tired, which I totally disagree with) hp must absorb this. Also, there is no hit location rules in base d20 (not sure about UA) there aren't rules for wounds. Personally I like the HERO system better, where you have BODY (which is how much lethal damage you can take) and stun (non lethal) and x amount of stun = y amount of body (actually all d6s so 1 = no BODY, 2-5= 1 BODY, 6= 2 body) and stun is figured (eg derived from Stats Con and BODY), where as BODY is a direct score(10 being the average and 20 being at the top of your game). All weapons that deal direct body have a lower damage potential, but affect a generally lower score ie a 1d4 BODY attack is much more lethal than a 1d10 stun attack. This is a way to go, but the HERO system has many more things I like than d20, but for some reason I just like the d20 system.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
mortenson 10-08-05, 08:14 PM	I really dont like the way that the Hit Point system works in D&D. I hate the fact how an old seasoned adventurer has more than a younger stronger counterpart. Or that automatically wizards always have to be frail and weak, or some 3 foot halfling warrior can absorb more damage than a human rougue. Has anyone experimented with another system or alternative method of hit points? and how did it fair for you?
Seeker95 10-08-05, 08:24 PM	Has anyone experimented with another system or alternative method of hit points?Yeah. It's called GURPS. It works great. It just ain't D&D.
caeruleus 10-08-05, 09:46 PM	You could also try the injury system variant in Unearthed Arcana, also available here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/injury.htm).
Novacat 10-08-05, 09:51 PM	I've played with a Vitality/Wounds system. It's similar to hit points, in fact, your vitality is equal to what your hit points would be. Wounds is equal to your Constitution score (not bonus, the actual score). When you take damage, you take it off of your vitality first, and then your wounds. Vitality represents nicks and bruises, while wounds represents serious damage (broken bones, large gashes, etc). When you have -10 wounds, you are dead. Now the difference between this and normal HP systems is that when someone makes a critical hit, it is not multiplied, but rather applied directly to wounds. This system causes two things: low level characters are more hardy, and high level characters are much easier to kill, since one good critical hit can take out a 20th level fighter. (Also, weapons with x3 crits added 1d6 to the crit damage, and x4 crits added 2d6.)
Lina_Inverse 10-08-05, 10:13 PM	I really dont like the way that the Hit Point system works in D&D. I hate the fact how an old seasoned adventurer has more than a younger stronger counterpart. Or that automatically wizards always have to be frail and weak, or some 3 foot halfling warrior can absorb more damage than a human rougue. Has anyone experimented with another system or alternative method of hit points? and how did it fair for you? Theres some complaints that make sense. But yours do not. Wizards are frail because its fantasy. halflings can absorb damage as humans because of game balence. and seasoned adventurers take more damage because they fight mightier foes.
mortenson 10-09-05, 04:24 AM	I could care less about game balance Lina_Inverse. I care about realism. The world we run is a very low fantasy setting more akinned to your classical Lankmar(spelling) setting than it is a Tolkeinesque D&D one. Frankly your reply doesnt make much sense other than the fact that they are accepted norms of Dungeons and Dragons. If you want to go by the book on every single thing then thats fine, If I choose not to thats my business. I dont need a lecture from you because I want to play the game differently. :mad:
mortenson 10-09-05, 04:26 AM	Thanks guys I will have to give those a shot.
Yabanjin 10-09-05, 05:29 AM	In a recent campaign we tried this: Vitality/wound system presented in the UA. Additionally, a character can survive up to (down to?) their Con. pts in the negative. Eg. a 14 con could survive down to -14 hps of damage. This just makes more sense to me than an arbitrary number like -10. Massive damage equals Con + character level or HD. This has provided a couple of instances where the mage got taken out early and two instances where the cleric rolled a successful crit (w/warhammer) and took out the evening's session's BBEG in one shot. I was kind of perturbed when this happened both times, but it was pretty cool - and from the player's perspective: totally fantastic (of course). In most of the major battles, characters were down to low hps - it translated into some really exciting games! However, it made encounters, almost all encounters, quite dangerous - but the players loved the excitement. And they've requested we repeat the system in the next game... . Ultimately, this system makes a little more sense to me than the standard rules. Incidentily, we also used DR and Def rolls rather than simple AC. I'd like to say its worked well, but its been a pain in the tail-end for me, the DM. The best part of the Def rolls is continuous call for dice rolls - people love rolling dice... . hope this helps.
Luega 10-09-05, 07:41 AM	Well, the Injury sustem from UA, as someone already mentioned, looks quite interesting. However, I've never had the opportunity to actually try it out myself. Any of you have any experiences with it? It looks like it has potential. Edit: It seems like it would make combat more dangerous/unpredictable. You don't have any concrete measure of how much damage your character is able to withstand. Kinda like in a novel or a movie where even a lucky blow from a lowly orc has the potential to disable a mighty hero. It makes the PC's think twice before charging into every encounter; "OK guys, is this fight really necesary?". I really like this thought.
Seeker95 10-09-05, 10:44 AM	I could care less about game balance Lina_Inverse. I care about realism. [...] I dont need a lecture from you because I want to play the game differently.You don't want to play the game differently. You want to play a different game. Don't get mad at Lina for explaining to you what D&D is, just because you want everything that it isn't. You want wizards as hardy as fighters and 20th level warriors to die as easily as 1st level warriors? Play GURPS.
Jagyr Ebonwood 10-09-05, 11:42 AM	In a recent campaign we tried this: <snip> Massive damage equals Con + character level or HD. This has provided a couple of instances where the mage got taken out early and two instances where the cleric rolled a successful crit (w/warhammer) and took out the evening's session's BBEG in one shot. I was kind of perturbed when this happened both times, but it was pretty cool - and from the player's perspective: totally fantastic (of course). In most of the major battles, characters were down to low hps - it translated into some really exciting games! However, it made encounters, almost all encounters, quite dangerous - but the players loved the excitement. And they've requested we repeat the system in the next game... . Ultimately, this system makes a little more sense to me than the standard rules. Woah...that's a little extreme...at second level, ~14 damage means save or die? The massive damage rule doesn't become standard until you get to level 30 something... This variant makes your game much more lethal for everyone...
dngnb8 10-09-05, 12:09 PM	Hit points are not just the amount of blood. Its a balance of experience, skill, and injury, fatigue. This is why a wisened veteran has high values. Many people think the damage inflicted is strictly body damage, you have bled this much, you have only this much blood left before you die. That isnt the case. Its a matter fatigue, blood, soreness from weapons impact, concussing, etc. Its a measure of the whole, not just the health.
caeruleus 10-09-05, 12:30 PM	You don't want to play the game differently. You want to play a different game. Don't get mad at Lina for explaining to you what D&D is, just because you want everything that it isn't. You want wizards as hardy as fighters and 20th level warriors to die as easily as 1st level warriors? Play GURPS. Oh, give me a break. D&D is not some sort of eternal immutable Platonic Form. The people who have worked at TSR/WotC over the years weren't scientists trying to figure out what "true" D&D is. They even publish variations on the rules, and label those variations "D&D". The National League and the American League use some different rules, but they both play baseball.
Seeker95 10-09-05, 12:36 PM	The National League and the American League use some different rules, but they both play baseball.They both require that the batter hit the ball into safe territory. They both require that three outs ends that team's "at bat". They both require three strikes = "you're out". They both require that the runner touch each base, in order. That the American League has a designated hitter is not fundamental to the game mechanics. And in a game between the two, (The All-Star Game), the American League can use the designated hitter, while the National League cannot, and they can still be playing the same game. What mortenson is proposing is so fundamentally different that it cannot be used in a game unless everyone is using it. You also could not take your character into the game he is proposing and just start playing. And you certainly wouldn't want to if your 17th level fighter could be bested by the 2nd level fighter simply because the 2nd level fighter is stronger. He doesn't want D&D. He wants GURPS. GURPS does not "scale" in advancement. Your chance of dying from a single hit on day 1 is just about the same as your chance of dying from a single hit on day 100.
Lina_Inverse 10-09-05, 12:49 PM	I could care less about game balance Lina_Inverse. I care about realism. The world we run is a very low fantasy setting more akinned to your classical Lankmar(spelling) setting than it is a Tolkeinesque D&D one. Frankly your reply doesnt make much sense other than the fact that they are accepted norms of Dungeons and Dragons. If you want to go by the book on every single thing then thats fine, If I choose not to thats my business. I dont need a lecture from you because I want to play the game differently. :mad: D&D is a game, thus game balence and playability trump anything. Realism is secondary to fun. It is also a fantasy game, therefore BY DEFINITION realism can NEVER apply. Magic is anathema to realism, slaying dragons and meeting the gods is not realistic. Bringing in a realism trumps game balence arguement is illogical. Because it is a GAME ment to be FUN, it is NOT fun when anything but a wizard is impossible to play at anything beyond the weakest stages of the game. Play rolemaster if you want realism, D&D is ment to be fun not realistic.
Dragonsblood 10-09-05, 01:46 PM	If you want to get rid of HP, you'd have to completely revamp almost every spell, item, and half the class abilities. I really liked dngnb8's explanation. I think your problem is more a matter of perspective. If you want the game to seem more realistic, flavor hits and damage differently. Instead of a blow by a warhammer breaking a rib, make it so the PC pulls a muscle in his arm after he deflects the hammer with his shield. You could even go as far as renaming HP as fatigue and the last 5 HP or so is actual damage taken. Every hit would be a difficult parry or dodge, making the PC more and more tired and sore (and if you've ever really had a tough workout, this is not something you can rest off in a day). Healing spells would heal a combination of wounds and fatigue/soreness.
caeruleus 10-09-05, 02:06 PM	They both require that the batter hit the ball into safe territory. They both require that three outs ends that team's "at bat". They both require three strikes = "you're out". They both require that the runner touch each base, in order. That the American League has a designated hitter is not fundamental to the game mechanics. And in a game between the two, (The All-Star Game), the American League can use the designated hitter, while the National League cannot, and they can still be playing the same game. Whether or not you use hit points, some variant like the injury system in UA, or something else, you're base stats are still the sum of 3d6, you roll a d20 add a modifier and compare to a target number, etc, etc. What mortenson is proposing is so fundamentally different that it cannot be used in a game unless everyone is using it. The same could be said of many other game mechanics and variants thereof. Perhaps I'm missing your point. You also could not take your character into the game he is proposing and just start playing. And you certainly wouldn't want to if your 17th level fighter could be bested by the 2nd level fighter simply because the 2nd level fighter is stronger. It's a very rare character that I would allow to "just start playing" in my campaign. I'd want to look it over and change what needs to be changed to reflect the rules I use. This is the case even when playing strictly "by the book", because other factors may not make the character fit. And if I wanted to play in such a campaign, I'd do so with an understanding of what it entailed. I don't agree with all the houserules of the DMs I play with, but I still agree to play with them. All I ask is that I know about them beforehand. He doesn't want D&D. He wants GURPS. I'm more inclined to believe him when we're talking about what he wants. GURPS and D&D have other differences.
caeruleus 10-09-05, 02:08 PM	Realism is secondary to fun. Unless someone has more fun by making certain aspects of the game more realistic in their eyes.
Scipion Emilien 10-09-05, 02:41 PM	Try to change the massive damage treshold, or adjust it by critter you see fit.
Milandros 10-09-05, 03:03 PM	The problem with realism is that it doesn't make a particularly good game. For realism you need a significantly different combat and HP system. First of all, most proper "hits" should be either devastating, even with a dagger (how many people continue to fight when stabbed in the gut?), or draining (blood loss from wounds generally lasts far longer than mosts fights), or inconsequential (bruises, minor grazes). Some sort of andreneline system would be needed to simulate how fight/flight reflexes can temporarily increase a body's ability. Armour should generally act as damage reduction, to a varying degree depending on hit location. Hit locations are vital - after all, being punched in the forearm and being punched on the head are very different things. Armour damage must be tracked. Hit locations are necessary for Armour/damage reduction calculations as well - plate mail won't protect your head if you're not wearing your helmet, and if you are you probably ought to have a vastly reduced field of vision. And so on, and so on, and so on.... the list of needed rule changes is somewhat larger than the PHB. After the fight is just as bad. You'll have to roll to see if the cut you got from that bandit yesterday is festering. No healing magics, not potions, just natural healing - which in D&D terms is way too fast. A serious cut across your shoulder could take months to heal properly and quite probably would leave you with permanent effects. I think what most people want isn't realism but believeability - a coherent, believeable world where you're not suddenly shocked out of your suspension of disbelief. For the type of campaing you've described I can understand why you might find the HP system a bit too simple, for without the other complications of magic and monstrous mayhem you probably need more focus on the basics. The vitality/wound point system may be a good option. ALternatively, do look at other systems, whether it's the Hero system for heroic fantasy (it seperates stun and body damage) or GURPS, or Rolemaster, or any of the many other good options. It might be easier then trying to change too many rules, which often has consequences elsewhere. Certainly with D&D I always rule that damage which simply can't be applied to HPs as close dodges, minor grazes, pulled muscles etc is handled differently. Truly massive falls, for example, can kill anything, no matter how high the HPs. No fighter falls from orbit and bounces.
Shike 10-09-05, 03:44 PM	Hit points are not just the amount of blood. Its a balance of experience, skill, and injury, fatigue. This is why a wisened veteran has high values. Many people think the damage inflicted is strictly body damage, you have bled this much, you have only this much blood left before you die. That isnt the case. Its a matter fatigue, blood, soreness from weapons impact, concussing, etc. Its a measure of the whole, not just the health. Yes. HP are a measure of how well someone takes damage, lasts in combat. Since there is no system for making con rolls for fatigue in combat (ie, in combat no one gets tired, which I totally disagree with) hp must absorb this. Also, there is no hit location rules in base d20 (not sure about UA) there aren't rules for wounds. Personally I like the HERO system better, where you have BODY (which is how much lethal damage you can take) and stun (non lethal) and x amount of stun = y amount of body (actually all d6s so 1 = no BODY, 2-5= 1 BODY, 6= 2 body) and stun is figured (eg derived from Stats Con and BODY), where as BODY is a direct score(10 being the average and 20 being at the top of your game). All weapons that deal direct body have a lower damage potential, but affect a generally lower score ie a 1d4 BODY attack is much more lethal than a 1d10 stun attack. This is a way to go, but the HERO system has many more things I like than d20, but for some reason I just like the d20 system.