Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tequila_Sunrise 08-07-07, 05:18 PM	As I work on my homebrew system, I've come to an impasse. My goal in designing this system is to strike a balance between realism and simplicity (two things that d&d is hit-or-miss with) in a setting where characters can become truly heroic. I've designed a hit point system that allows higher level characters to be heroically tough. It involves five injury categories (from Healthy to Dead); if your character is in any of the middle three categories, they loose a small amount of HP each round to represent blood loss. Every time a character goes down a category, he/she has to make a progressively higher Con check to remain conscious. Now here's my problem: I've gone to a lot of trouble to make this HP system simple and yet lend the game a semblance of realism. But is it really worth it? When you play an rpg, does it lend to your excitement if your character could end up dying just from bloodloss? Or do questions like "why do I need a special feat/magic item to cause my enemy to bleed?" not hinder your game experience? Have you ever found a system that struck a good balance between the two? (I've played using vitality/wounds, but I felt that it took away most of the characters' heroic-ness while only lending a small amount of realism) TS
unundindur 08-07-07, 05:36 PM	I have to say that it is an either or. Unless it is taken to the extreme it only slows down the gameplay. If on the other hand it is made really realistic it can be a mayor point of itself, and thus have a desired effect. My group have tried all the "you don't know exactely how injured you are" variants and all, but they didn't really give anythign to the game. What is on the other hand a viable option, and seems to suit your idea is just to limit hp to Call of chutulu levels, or in DnD terms make humanoids and small creatures never increase from their 1 hd. This of course will have mayor impact on gameplay nad challenges, but can be countered by many means such as making it easier to gain better armour etc. I think ou get the idea, and if you have questions I am happy to comply :)
TheAnthroDM 08-07-07, 05:37 PM	HP stands fr Hit Points, not Hit Points. So you're title is misspelled. "Are Hit Pointss Worth the Realism?" Furthermore, HP does not represent physical wounds unless you wish it to, a most sensable DM would rule that HP gauges the endurance that your character has before he slips in his defenses and suffers a mortal wound.
Dan Hemmens 08-07-07, 06:03 PM	I've never seen an RPG actually get a good balance between HP and realism, unless you count things like Unknown Armies and Call of Cthulhu, where you have HP, but you don't have very many compared to the damage you're taking. I've seen a fair number of systems which manage to get the *worst* of both worlds, however. The advantage of Hit Points is simplicity. The disadvantage is verisimillitude. It is very easy to add extra complications into a Hit Point system which do not make it any more believable. On a personal note, I just generally hate "realistic" combat systems. They're brilliant right up until you actually use them, and then you find that one of the PCs is unplayable for eight months of game time while he recovers from a sucking chest wound.
swallowyersoul 08-07-07, 06:39 PM	Emphatically, yes. Nobody actually wants a realistic combat system. Real combat sucks. It's terrifying, dangerous and generally unentertaining. Playing a game that realistically portrayed mortal combat would not be fun. What we actually want is a cinematic combat system, one that lets us recreate the most awesome awesomeness of movie combat. Stuff like you see in Indiana Jones, Die Hard and 300. Hit Points do a fairly good job of representing those fights from the hero's point of view. You get whaled on a bunch of times, take damage that would realistically incapacitate you, but keep on keeping on and put the smackdown on the baddies. Now, there are some things I'd like to see changed in the D&D combat system towards making it more cinematic. But HP ain't on that list.
unundindur 08-07-07, 06:46 PM	The problem comes when a first level brute of a fighter takes a blow and is killed while the frail (Teclis from warhammer) type of character with a lot of levels can withstand direct hits for length of time. I have been tinkering with a system with size-based HP, but where as you grow in levels you gain bonuses to dodge etc. This should (if applied properly, which I have not yet done) make for a system that is both somewaht realistic and simultaneously make for heroic gameplay. Of course a CR 18 dragon is just...way out of league, but that again only redefine the term heroic :) Now killing an adult dragon may be the greatest feat a sole person can ever hope to acheive, while ancient dragons lay waste to cities before they fall. Just a thought though.
Tequila_Sunrise 08-07-07, 07:20 PM	Well, my system does not make characters any less heroic at higher levels than characters in d&d; a 5th level character can still survive being run through with a greatsword. I like high level characters being able to wade through armies of lesser creatures and be reasonably expected to defeat elder dragons. My desire for realism is limited to "why don't combatants bleed after being stabbed/bashed" and "why are combatants 100% fine until they hit 0 hp and then go directly to unconsciousness?" The idea that "damage does not necessarily mean an actual wound" is absurd. I don't have the patience to explain why at the moment, but this POV is important to my explaination of how high level characters can survive incredible injuries, which I include in my homebrew's rules: "As a magical place, [insert fantasy setting] imbues all of its creatures with a certain reserve of life-force. This life-force, in normal creatures, repairs minor wounds and trauma. Certain creatures and characters (high level monsters and PCs/NPCs) who are accustomed to pain, blood and suffering have larger reserves of life-force which are capable of instantly healing even mortal wounds." Now this explanation can easily be expanded to explain why characters don't bleed or fall unconscious until they are at or near death. But do I want to use it that way? This explanation of HPs fits hand-in-glove with the way that I've always seen healing magic; it simply regenerates one's life-force reserve.
unundindur 08-07-07, 07:25 PM	In that case I am sceptical and suspect it will lead the game to a crawl with little tangiable benefit. That said, if it somehow worked well I would love it :)
Mock26 08-07-07, 08:02 PM	As I work on my homebrew system, I've come to an impasse. My goal in designing this system is to strike a balance between realism and simplicity (two things that d&d is hit-or-miss with) in a setting where characters can become truly heroic. I've designed a hit point system that allows higher level characters to be heroically tough. It involves five injury categories (from Healthy to Dead); if your character is in any of the middle three categories, they loose a small amount of HP each round to represent blood loss. Every time a character goes down a category, he/she has to make a progressively higher Con check to remain conscious. Now here's my problem: I've gone to a lot of trouble to make this HP system simple and yet lend the game a semblance of realism. But is it really worth it? When you play an rpg, does it lend to your excitement if your character could end up dying just from bloodloss? Or do questions like "why do I need a special feat/magic item to cause my enemy to bleed?" not hinder your game experience? Have you ever found a system that struck a good balance between the two? (I've played using vitality/wounds, but I felt that it took away most of the characters' heroic-ness while only lending a small amount of realism) TS I think it would be more realistic to have a system where critical hits could kill even the greatest hero of the land. Dying from bloodloss is very realistic, but for me it has never really been part of the game, except for characters who are unconcsious and bleeding out. But, I do like the idea that my 20th level character could conceivably be killed by a single arrow through the eye, even if that chance is only 1 in a million. Another option would to only have blood loss in the category that comes just before death. For the two categories above that they don't lose blood until after the fight. It could be that before that their adrenaline and training and such allow them to shrug off the effects of wounds, but when they get to that final category just before death it is a matter of the human body only being able to sustain so much abuse.
enlightened 08-07-07, 08:03 PM	The idea that "damage does not necessarily mean an actual wound" is absurd. I don't have the patience to explain why at the moment. Should you find the patience within yourself, I would love to read your explanation of why that is absurd.
unundindur 08-07-07, 08:08 PM	Should you find the patience within yourself, I would love to read your explanation of why that is absurd. Not that I am him/her or anything, but the fact that poisons for example are dealt on succesful hits should indicate that a hit dealing HP damage is indeed a hit... at least so I would think
enlightened 08-07-07, 08:25 PM	Not that I am him/her or anything, but the fact that poisons for example are dealt on succesful hits should indicate that a hit dealing HP damage is indeed a hit... at least so I would think But modifying your fluff on a case-by-case basis is totally doable. Fighter A swings at a zombie and hits for 12 damage. I could see describing this as a true hit. Fighter A swings at a flying pixie and hits for 12 damage. I could see describing this as the pixie narrowly dodging the blade (but losing "plot immunity") Fighter A wielding a poison-bladed sword swings and hits a flying pixie for 12 damage. I could see describing this as knicking the pixie in the wing and the poison gets in. I interpret everything on a case-by-case basis and choose the fluff that seems most appropriate for that situation. In the description, sometimes it's a hit, sometimes it's not, but the mechanics don't change. Also, if you change the names of all the cure spells to something more generic like, Pelor's Blessing I, Pelor's Blessing II, etc. then you could describe there effects based on the situation as well. Sometimes they close wounds, sometimes they restore luck, etc... If you make a hard-and-fast rule about how something should be interpreted up front then you are tying your hands for later, and a big part of the fun for me, as a DM, is translating the mechanics into my fluff on the fly.
Mock26 08-07-07, 08:45 PM	The idea that "damage does not necessarily mean an actual wound" is absurd. It is no more absurb than talking about dwarves and dragons and magic and gods and orcs and such as if they were actually real and not figments of our imagination.
deathbane 08-07-07, 08:50 PM	Well, my system does not make characters any less heroic at higher levels than characters in d&d; a 5th level character can still survive being run through with a greatsword. I like high level characters being able to wade through armies of lesser creatures and be reasonably expected to defeat elder dragons. My desire for realism is limited to "why don't combatants bleed after being stabbed/bashed" and "why are combatants 100% fine until they hit 0 hp and then go directly to unconsciousness?" The idea that "damage does not necessarily mean an actual wound" is absurd. I don't have the patience to explain why at the moment, but this POV is important to my explaination of how high level characters can survive incredible injuries, which I include in my homebrew's rules: "As a magical place, [insert fantasy setting] imbues all of its creatures with a certain reserve of life-force. This life-force, in normal creatures, repairs minor wounds and trauma. Certain creatures and characters (high level monsters and PCs/NPCs) who are accustomed to pain, blood and suffering have larger reserves of life-force which are capable of instantly healing even mortal wounds." Now this explanation can easily be expanded to explain why characters don't bleed or fall unconscious until they are at or near death. But do I want to use it that way? This explanation of HPs fits hand-in-glove with the way that I've always seen healing magic; it simply regenerates one's life-force reserve. Actually all is takes is the DM to say you bleed, and they bleed, but most DM's that I have seen just say you lost X hit points, and everytime a character gets hit it takes something from him, until he did not have what it takes to dodge the killing blow. That is how I see it. Hit points are not just how much damage a character can take, but how good he is at avoiding damage. Here is what I mean. You swing a sword at a level 1 fighter and he may be impaled because he did not see it coming, but you swing a sword at a level 10 character and he gets cut enough to make him bleed, but due to his experience he saw it coming and avoided most of the damage. That is why he can rest and be back at full strength the next day after losing 10 hp, while a level 1 character could not.
unundindur 08-07-07, 08:50 PM	But modifying your fluff on a case-by-case basis is totally doable. Fighter A swings at a zombie and hits for 12 damage. I could see describing this as a true hit. Fighter A swings at a flying pixie and hits for 12 damage. I could see describing this as the pixie narrowly dodging the blade (but losing "plot immunity") Fighter A wielding a poison-bladed sword swings and hits a flying pixie for 12 damage. I could see describing this as knicking the pixie in the wing and the poison gets in. I interpret everything on a case-by-case basis and choose the fluff that seems most appropriate for that situation. In the description, sometimes it's a hit, sometimes it's not, but the mechanics don't change. Also, if you change the names of all the cure spells to something more generic like, Pelor's Blessing I, Pelor's Blessing II, etc. then you could describe there effects based on the situation as well. Sometimes they close wounds, sometimes they restore luck, etc... If you make a hard-and-fast rule about how something should be interpreted up front then you are tying your hands for later, and a big part of the fun for me, as a DM, is translating the mechanics into my fluff on the fly. Yes, this is about what I do to :)
Tequila_Sunrise 08-07-07, 08:59 PM	But modifying your fluff on a case-by-case basis is totally doable. I've heard all the arguments before and I'm not interested in turning this thread into another one. All that I will say is that I don't have a problem with my DM modifying the fluff with every sword swing, if he wants to. But like my bleeding rules, doing so requires that I as the DM must take more energy away from running the game.
enlightened 08-07-07, 09:08 PM	I've heard all the arguments before and I'm not interested in turning this thread into another one. All that I will say is that I don't have a problem with my DM modifying the fluff with every sword swing, if he wants to. But like my bleeding rules, doing so requires that I as the DM must take more energy away from running the game. I understand, but for me, modifying the fluff is the game. That's what I have fun doing as a DM.
MrCustomer 08-07-07, 09:52 PM	Such systems make combat fast and deadly however so it would take extensive balancing and play testing to fit it into the D&D game to rebalance spells, fireballs, weapons creatures etc. these weren't balanced around causing instant death but HP damage. So I don't recomend house rules on this, everything needs to be balanced around a new combat system. You could go by the percentage HP rule if you wanted to add more flavour. Any attack that does 10% HP damage causes a Fortitude save with a +1 difficulty for each 10% of hp below full health, failure means a -1 penelty to all rolls, this is acumulative as you get further injuries. This reflects HP losses as wounds. Pain, loss of blood, broken bones etc. Keep in mind this will make combat go in favour of the people who don't get hit. As one side takes damage they will get weaker and the unwounded will have the advantage. Combat can therefore be riskier so be careful if you use this sytem, the game's combat system is balanced for simple hp loss not these penalties. Using the above system, Each point of magical healing will get rid of 1 penelty point for being wounded. The penelty for wounded heals at a rate of 1 point per 10% hps that the player gets healed for (stacks with magical healing). Or 1 point per Healing Roll (as the wounds are bandaged and treated) Make Heal a class skill for everyone. This seems lenient however as mentioned above the combat system in D&D isn't balanced for this so be easy on healing from extra penelties to lessen the extra risk added to combat.
Tequila_Sunrise 08-07-07, 11:10 PM	Such systems make combat fast and deadly however so it would take extensive balancing and play testing to fit it into the D&D game... Perhaps I should have been more clear. When I say 'my homebrew system', I mean my own game entirely, not just d&d with a bunch of house rules. So yes, everything will require playtesting which will happen once I am comfortable with the basic system. Right now I'm getting comfortable with the system and this thread is my way of finding where others' comfort levels are.
Roog 08-08-07, 12:42 AM	I've designed a hit point system that allows higher level characters to be heroically tough. It involves five injury categories (from Healthy to Dead); if your character is in any of the middle three categories, they loose a small amount of HP each round to represent blood loss. Every time a character goes down a category, he/she has to make a progressively higher Con check to remain conscious. Have you had a look at Star Wars - Saga Edition's HP system? It does something similar to this.
Tequila_Sunrise 08-08-07, 01:04 AM	No, all I've heard about the Saga system is how easy and perfect its skill point system is. I'm sick of hearing about it, but I'm willing to give its HP system a shot.
Roog 08-08-07, 02:28 AM	but I'm willing to give its HP system a shot. Basically you have HP as normal + a condition track. Condition are roughly (OK, -1, -2, -5, -10, Helpless) You have Damage Threshold = Fort Defence (=10 + Fort Save equivalent) + Size Mod. (Note: You can trade in Std Actions for Move actions, and any action for a swift action) System: - Treat HP as normal - If you take Damage Threshold or more damage in one hit, then drop one step on the condition track. - If a hit takes you to 0 (or less HP) then drop to Helpless (and KO) condition (if damage < Damage Threshold) or die (if damage >= Damage Threshold). - You can spend 3 swift actions (together or separately) to move one step up the condition track. - once a day (if below 1/2 HP) you can spend a swift action to "gain your second wind", and recover 1/4 HP - a character who is unconscious, makes CON checks with possible results being regaining consciousness / persistent unconsciousness / death.
Dungeonrenter 08-08-07, 02:29 PM	SAGA is a good choice. However, here is the other thing I have noticed. I have tried every single published alternative to the dnd hit point system. I have tried condition tracks, vitality etc. I have used modifiers for bleeding and had penalties and tables for being wounded. The problem is that it slows the game down alot. Also merely being at low hit points is scary enough for most players. Also I found that in the combats where it would be most imporant we always forgot to use any associated rules because everybody was to excited. So, personally I am moving more into the camp of "hit points /health points" are good becasue they work camp. I have played games with boxes and in the end hit points are just to useful. Nothing plays as easily as hit points, and while it may be mentally unsatisfing to think that players are fine and then dead, when the battle is on most players are not thinking "I have only 20% of my hp, I am at -3" Instead all they can think is "if we don't kill him this round or next he will kill me.
aotrscommander 08-08-07, 03:35 PM	You have to ask what sort of game you want. I personally like hit points, since it allows (at least apart from save or dies) combats where the BBEG isn't ko'd in one hit or the players are (or at least not as often). Rolemaster, my other favoured system uses hit points, but they are specifically stated to respresent a combination of shock, damage and blood loss, rather than D&D abstraction. (They also are about three of four times greater in magnitude.) You get more his in Rolemaster, not by going up a level, but by spending skill points in become more hard (Body Development); I mention this since it seems like what you're aiming for. Rolemaster also is a lot more detailed and realisitc, worrying about close to actual damage to bones (broken or shattered), muscle, tendons et al, though in reality most of what the injury effects are boil down to cannot parry, hit point loss, bleeding (hits lost per round), stun (closer to D&D's Dazed) and action penalties. The down side is, of course, that without careful DMing, you can easily wipe the party out and you can garentee some bugger will roll open-ended and deal and E crit to the BBEG and spifflicate him in one shot. If you really want to add bleeding to D&D (and not just the really serious stuff like Con damage), you might want to consider only small amounts and wide intervals, or flat-out increasing the amount of hits and damage to give you finer granular control.
Werral 08-08-07, 07:28 PM	Check out the site The Forge if you want info on creating indy games. Look at Cyberpunk 2020. That's a pretty realistic sytem but it's based on a cynical genre. TSR's old Marvel Super Heroes was very comic orientated. You don't go up in levels, you improve abilities directly. Still if you din't have some super reason to not die, a gun shot could kill you. Personally I found Rolemaster a pain. Rolling on a dozen pedantic and grizzly tables isn't for me. Runequest is worth a look. Paranoia was cool, but you had 6 clones of each character. I'm doing the same thing in my spare time and personally I think the best balance is achieved by combining a deadly wound system with some kind of fate/action point system (at least that's what I'm doing). There are also really funky systems, look at the thread on The FOrge site, "Playing D&D like an indy RPG". There's one system which is based on a kind of betting mechanic: Player: Okay I want to cut of the goblins head with my next strke. DM: Okay, but if you miss you fall to the ground. The player can accept or reject the stakes. That could be fun I guess
Tequila_Sunrise 08-09-07, 01:57 PM	Thanks for all the input and suggestions! I've decided to drop the injury categories and all related complication. TS
Moniker 08-09-07, 03:36 PM	HP stands fr Hit Points, not Hit Points. So you're title is misspelled. "Are Hit Pointss Worth the Realism?" Furthermore, HP does not represent physical wounds unless you wish it to, a most sensable DM would rule that HP gauges the endurance that your character has before he slips in his defenses and suffers a mortal wound. "Your" not a very "sensable" spelling teacher. :P
Holy_Beholder 08-10-07, 11:23 PM	Just think of HP as luck/skill, that way people aren't really injured until their luck runs low. That even addresses things like falling damage(a 20th level character lands in a heap of straw, dung, or other soft things, while a 1st level character hits bedrock. A small amount of the HP is actually damage taken, so healing spells help that but don't bring your luck back as much.
Lefty 09-08-07, 01:42 PM	[QUOTE=enlightened;13340670]But modifying your fluff on a case-by-case basis is totally doable. Fighter A swings at a zombie and hits for 12 damage. I could see describing this as a true hit. Fighter A swings at a flying pixie and hits for 12 damage. I could see describing this as the pixie narrowly dodging the blade (but losing "plot immunity") Fighter A wielding a poison-bladed sword swings and hits a flying pixie for 12 damage. I could see describing this as knicking the pixie in the wing and the poison gets in. *There are such basics lacking in these three scenarios, the undead responde very little normal weaponry...a pixie is not going to poisoned...and a pixie just might have only 5 hp (squish) or nearly a 1000 (kabong). There is a very well defined line between playing dungeons and dragons and just shouting at each other about "I don't want my character to bleed"
enlightened 09-09-07, 02:20 AM	But modifying your fluff on a case-by-case basis is totally doable. Fighter A swings at a zombie and hits for 12 damage. I could see describing this as a true hit. Fighter A swings at a flying pixie and hits for 12 damage. I could see describing this as the pixie narrowly dodging the blade (but losing "plot immunity") Fighter A wielding a poison-bladed sword swings and hits a flying pixie for 12 damage. I could see describing this as knicking the pixie in the wing and the poison gets in. *There are such basics lacking in these three scenarios, the undead responde very little normal weaponry...a pixie is not going to poisoned...and a pixie just might have only 5 hp (squish) or nearly a 1000 (kabong). There is a very well defined line between playing dungeons and dragons and just shouting at each other about "I don't want my character to bleed" You're right. There are details lacking. Many of them. Every situation has a million little specific details that change the way HP loss could be interpreted. For example, I was envisioning a pixie with at least 13 HP, but if that detail were different then my interpretation of the loss of 12 HP would also be different. Am I to take it then, that you oppose the idea of flexible interpretations of HP loss?
Lefty 09-11-07, 01:30 PM	Let me give you an example A Pixie with only one hit point left might suddenly divulge the reasons for the entier campaign... or mock and curse the adventurers for being so foolish as to attack a tiny magical being... I wouldn't let the pixie be less wounded, I would find a way to play the role. I'm making an assumption here myself, that the characters are not out simply hunting down pixies. If that were the case the poor little one hit point pixie would go straight into the bag. Pixies aren't known for combat, so there are a lot of questions about whacking a pixie with a sword...more pixies arrive maybe? I don't consider my view to be inflexible, but I definately would award the damage. Lefty
deanruel 09-11-07, 05:08 PM	Should you find the patience within yourself, I would love to read your explanation of why that is absurd. Because being lit on fire deals damage, falling 100 feet onto rock deals damage, and swimming in lava deals damage. If you are doing a breaststroke through magma there is no way you are "dodging" anything. Hit points and by extension hit point loss was and is meant to represent injury to your character. If you look at it in low level play (where the majority of designers mindsets take place in) it makes perfect sense. You have 16 hp, you get slashed well with a dagger for 3 damage and now you've only got 13 hp left. Only a few more slashes and you're out. But like many things in high level play the system breaks down. If a 15th level mage who is old and weak and frail gets into a fight he can take a simply RIDICULOUS amount of damage before he is even hurt. So you are forced to describe the system in a more believable way to maintain versimilitude. In summary I am not saying that playing hp as meaning "dodging ability" is wrong in any way. In D&D pretty much everything is right as long as everyone agrees on it. I am merely saying that given many of the things that deal damage that are physically impossible to "dodge" you should at least recognize that people playing hp as meaning "total damage taking ability" isn't wrong either. They're just play choices.
enlightened 09-11-07, 07:14 PM	Because being lit on fire deals damage, falling 100 feet onto rock deals damage, and swimming in lava deals damage. If you are doing a breaststroke through magma there is no way you are "dodging" anything. In the situations you listed, there is a strong requirement for the fluff to contain actual physical damage. In the above situations, it wouldn't make sense for the HP loss to be anything other than physical damage. But there exist other situations in which there is no pressing need for the fluff to be actual damage. In those situations, it is possible to be more flexible in describing what HP loss is. Keep in mind, I'm not saying that "HP loss doesn't mean physical damage". I'm saying that "HP loss doesn't necessarily mean physical damage". Immersion in lava: This is only physical damage, and I couldn't imagine it being anything else. Sword blow: This could situationally be interpreted many ways. Poisoned sword blow: This needs to be a hit. However, it doesn't need to be a hard hit. Even a blow of 30 or more HPs could be described as a glancing blow that just barely breaks the skin. "Breaking the skin" is really the only fluff requirement put in place by the existance of the poison. And on the topic of play-styles and choices, I agree completely. Actually, that was my point to begin with. There are a lot of people that see HP loss as necessarily meaning physical damage and I was saying that there are other people who prefer more flexibility in interpreting HP loss.
enlightened 09-11-07, 07:15 PM	Let me give you an example A Pixie with only one hit point left might suddenly divulge the reasons for the entier campaign... or mock and curse the adventurers for being so foolish as to attack a tiny magical being... I wouldn't let the pixie be less wounded, I would find a way to play the role. I'm making an assumption here myself, that the characters are not out simply hunting down pixies. If that were the case the poor little one hit point pixie would go straight into the bag. Pixies aren't known for combat, so there are a lot of questions about whacking a pixie with a sword...more pixies arrive maybe? I don't consider my view to be inflexible, but I definately would award the damage. Lefty I think you are misunderstanding a great many things.
Archon of Light 09-11-07, 08:33 PM	This comes directly off one of the Jedi Counseling (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20070322jc101)articles from the WotC Star Wars website. It gives a very well thought-out perspective on hit points and applies very well to any similar RPG system. Take a look. What do hit points represent? Here's a quote from Saga Edition: Hit points (sometimes abbreviated "hp") represent two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a graze or near miss. As you become more experienced, you become more adept at parrying strikes, dodging attacks, and rolling with blows such that you minimize or avoid significant physical trauma, but all this effort slowly wears you down. Rather than trying to keep track of the difference between attacks and how much physical injury you take, hit points are an abstract measure of your total ability to survive damage. Hit points are not a universal gauge of concrete, physical toughness. If a soldier and a small tank both have 100 hit points, that doesn't mean the soldier is physically as tough as the tank! Hit points are deliberately abstract so that the same measure of damage can be applied to an inanimate object (such as a wall), an animate object (such as a tank), a massive creature (such as a Krayt dragon), or a high-level character. Consider what hit points mean to each of them: The high-level character's durability comes mostly from avoiding attacks, rolling with blows, and so forth. Only a fraction of his survival is based on his physical ability to absorb damage. The Krayt dragon's hit points include skill and speed, but a much greater portion comes from its sheer size and bulk. In other words, it's hard to hit something that big in a way that will cause critically injuries. The tank's hit points are completely physical in nature, but they aren't determined only by its size and mass. They also account for qualities such as the resiliency of the tank's systems, the volatility of its fuel and payload, the number of redundant and backup systems, and so on. The wall's hit points are completely physical and almost entirely determined by simple physical characteristics such as the type of material used to build the wall, the thickness of the wall, and so on. Over the years, some players have developed a terrible misconception that a character with 100 hit points can be shot almost a dozen times in the chest. Not true! Both a high-level soldier with 100 hit points and a stormtrooper with 10 hit points will be grievously injured and possibly killed by a single blaster wound to the chest. However, the high-level soldier will dodge the first nine shots, and the stormtrooper won't. (If it helps, imagine that a high-level hero has a reserve of "virtual hit points" to offset attacks that would otherwise be lethal. Once he has exhausted his reserve, the blow that finally reduces him to 0 hit points will solidly connect and cause serious physical trauma.)
Patrick Draken-Korin 09-11-07, 11:26 PM	To agree with the quote from the SW saga edition, THat's how I've looked at things for a while. Generally I explain that a certain numer of Hp are "real" according to size and number of HD. The majority, however are "virtual" and are usually expended before getting to your real Hp. That's how I also explain death from massive damage; fail the save and it means all of your real Hp have been expended, regardless of how many virtual ones you've got left.
ShinoAburame 09-11-07, 11:44 PM	Ive houseruled HP and players say (well moreso complain:P ) that combat is too "real". Step One: No -10 crap, 0hp means dead. By doing this those numbers become very important. Especialy at low levels. Step Two: Roll for HP first and every level. Suddenly choosing a fighter isn't looking so bad.. Step three: Massive damage=to con score and applied only to normal damage. Normal damage is anytning non-magical. It's just a little umph added because it's never really explained why there's warriors when magic is so prevelant. You can't expect me to believe talent and economic reasons alone create this huge gap between the number of spellcasters and the number of soldiers.. Step four: Percentile death for weapons w/fort save. Say for example the light-mace might have a 6% deatblow rate. If this percentage is met, the foe struck with a light-mace must make a fortitude saving throw or die. This explains why even spellcasters sometimes carry weapons. When they know a spell won't automaticaly bring hp down to zero, they can always depend on a weapon's possibility of triggering deathblows and massive damage. Evidently even the 100hp soldier vs the 10hp stormtrooper the stromtrooper might actually be able to pulloff a victory. Where as normaly there wouldn't be a snowball's chance in hell.
Roog 09-12-07, 02:01 AM	Ive houseruled HP and players say (well moreso complain:P ) that combat is too "real". Step One: No -10 crap, 0hp means dead. How on earth does this make the game more "real"?
ArcTan 09-12-07, 03:10 AM	Well, my system does not make characters any less heroic at higher levels than characters in d&d; a 5th level character can still survive being run through with a greatsword. I like high level characters being able to wade through armies of lesser creatures and be reasonably expected to defeat elder dragons. My desire for realism is limited to "why don't combatants bleed after being stabbed/bashed" and "why are combatants 100% fine until they hit 0 hp and then go directly to unconsciousness?" You want Star Wars Saga Edition's condition track. It'll basically solve all your problems.
Ra-Tiel 09-12-07, 08:57 AM	How on earth does this make the game more "real"? Perhaps he meant "real" like in "every time combat ensues, people die"? :thinks: :shifty: Seriously, with all these points I'd rather consider signing up for WoW or EQ2 instead of playing DnD. Rolling HP even at first level, dead at 0 HP, massive damage == Con score, and some messy %-ile system for insta-death, I'd estimate chances for character survival rapidly approaching with game progress. Yeah, playing a wizard or sorcerer must be really great in such a game, where you have a 25% chance to start off with one single HP, so everything that hits you - be it cat or mouse or bat - will instantly kill you. :rolleyes:
zorgling25 09-13-07, 07:18 PM	Suddenly choosing a fighter isn't looking so bad.. Oh, please. By the level that fighters actually do look bad, that small amount of HP difference between rolling and getting max HP at 1st level is negligible (1.5 on average). All it does is make Wizards even MORE of a pain early on, which they already were.
Exquisite_Flopilidopilies 09-13-07, 08:20 PM	Hit points are a bit silly, but they're what D&D has. Remember that a good portion of D&D's DNA comes from wargaming, where these kinds of abstractions make sense. Now, if you're just doing your own thing from the ground up, you needn't do it that way. Do something more like Hero system, where you don't need to abstract away the three factors that contribute to hit points and armor class: a) whether you got hit or not, and potentially where; b) how much force/damage your defenses absorb and c) how bad off you are afterwards. The whole "higher level characters are better at turning aside blows" works sometimes, but not all the time. Joe Blow falls from fifty feet and is crushed, Wendy Wizard gets a bloody nose and is game for a couple more goes? Sure, that Just Doesn't Make Sense (especially when Wendy and Joe both have the same chance, as outlined in the rules, to Jump or Tumble their way out of some of the damage--there's no skill differential here). But in practice this doesn't come up too much--although I sort of like the idea of a game-referential villain who performs inhumane experiments on the Joe Blows and Wendy Wizards, trying to get to the root of these physical oddities: "I wonder if it's really true that if I slice you so that you are about to bleed your last, I can save your life by drowning you? Well, nothing to do but try..."
Holy_Beholder 09-13-07, 09:17 PM	In some cases, you just have to assume luck plays a part. Joe lands on a sharp rock, Wendy lands on a soft bush. Someone in between lands in a hard bush, or a shallow mud pool. But hit points aren't even slightly realistic, although factoring in luck helps.
Lefty 09-15-07, 08:09 PM	enlightened, What I enderstand is that first off there are rules in the game of dungeons and dragons that always apply. If somethings _isn't_ a zombie and in your game you are calling it one, then your game is unfair. Next, dungeons and dragons is a matrix of solutions and requirements; what I also understand is that some people use the name "pixie" to describe something weak and never bother to create the definitions of that "pixie" and just kind of slide through an adventure passing along little pass alongs. Without Turn Undead, a Blessed Weapon, Holy Water or Silver Edged Weapons (none of which simply dealing 12hp) your characters just aren't going to do _anything_ Interestingly, if you chop off a Zombie's arm with a completely normal weapon (causing damage) some time can be bought. When characters are being wounded (and even worse about "swimming in lava") saying to the dungeon master "I can't have only 3 hit points, isn't there another way" The answer could be "It's either that or you now have only one and a half legs (chopped off at the knee)" Lefty and Mr Lollipop, your sig is not funny, incursize death can save lives.
pigknight 09-29-07, 12:25 AM	Why must you guys make this complicated? Just have HP=Hit Points, as in how many times you have to be hit before you go down.
Lefty 10-04-07, 01:37 PM	Because a fighter with 7 hit points might "hit" a fighter with 90 hit points quite a few more times than 90 with no effect. There really is a difference between getting hit, taking damage and becoming wounded.
pigknight 10-06-07, 11:51 PM	Because a fighter with 7 hit points might "hit" a fighter with 90 hit points quite a few more times than 90 with no effect. There really is a difference between getting hit, taking damage and becoming wounded. I meant seriously hit. Like stabbed, not smacked.
The_Levitator 10-08-07, 06:10 PM	One thing that helps me with description is to get creative with what's being used to attack. When a tough fighter only manages a few HP of damage on his attack, I might say something like, "your swing misses completely, but as the thief dodges your blow, you catch him with the handle of your sword on the return swing, right in the ribs. He's going to feel that in the morning." I try to think cinematically with combat. Even though the fighter is swinging his longsword, he could use the handle of his sword or flat of his blade, a punch or kick, an elbow to the jaw. I know, I know; there are rules for unarmed combat and blah blah blah, but these would be unintended attacks that just made themselves available in the heat of combat. If you are playing Core by the book with absolutely no wiggle room, then of course you will be limiting yourself as to what is going on in the battle. Rather than explain low HP damage away with elbows and knees, you could always say something like, "the enemy twists at just the right moment and his arm blocks the flat of your blade. The force of your swing causes him to shout out an wince in pain." Or you could say that while the fighter blocked your attack with his shield, the force of your swing drove his own shield into his chin, splitting his lip. There are systems out there with extremely detailed charts and tables that tell you exactly what happens with every swing (Rolemaster comes to mind), but those systems usually sacrifice gameplay speed for detail (Rolemaster REALLY comes to mind :D ). What I personally like about D&D is that it puts the creativite description in the hands of the DM's and players. There's no need for critical tables in D&D. When a critical happens, the DM is actually expected to come up with a colorful way to describe it :eek: . This may be the part that frustrates some players, as they would rather have the game tell them what is going on. But I promise that the more you develop creative ways to describe combat, the less you will want your game rules telling you what to say! ;)
The_Levitator 10-08-07, 06:20 PM	I just remembered an in-game example that my player really liked. He is playing a 1st level barbarian. He was wrongly accused of stealing from another barbarian from a rival tribe. The 2 were face to face and decided that there was only 1 way to settle it. The barbarian he was facing was 3rd level. On the PC's first swing, he hit for 10 pts. of damage. I described it something like this. "The arrogant Tigerian underestimates you and leaves himself wide open. You swing wildly for his head (used power attack). Your axe would have separated a normal man's head from his body, but the arrogant Tigerian twists at the last moment, deflecting your blade with his axe. He's unable to escape the ful force of your blow, and your axe takes a nice chunk out of his shoulder sending the piece of disembodied flesh sailing through the air. He's not looking so arrogant now." Now I know that this is a pretty wordy example, but this is a solo campaign. In a regular game, I would have cut that description in half. I try to give combat descriptions in only 1 or two sentences, unless it is a critical. When I get wordier than normal, my players know that their PC's have scored a critical strike.