Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Abein 04-09-05, 02:05 PM	A DM friend of mine is brainstorming a new game. He's come from his last game a year and some change ago that he gave all players max hit points for each level, he came away from that experience tired of long combats, thinking that it needs to be cut down (He had moderately experienced to moderately inexperienced players). That thought in and of itself should have allowed him to reach the conclusion that he should roll for HP or take average instead (effectively cutting combats in half, for good or for ill), he believe combat should be more deadly, and because of that shorter, I suggested the vitality/wound system and he said it was too complex. He now reaches the conclusion that your CON score is your hit points. Any ideas on how I should bring doubt to him? Any opinions?
BladeBoy 04-09-05, 03:02 PM	like total? so with 12 con you have 12hp? just smack him with the PHB and repeat until he changes that stupid thought
Darkmeer 04-09-05, 03:09 PM	While it may bog things up slightly, try reducing the Massive damage threshold. Something like 10 Points for levels 1-5, 20 for 6-10, 30 for 11-15, and 40 for levels 16-20. Incrementing up 10 points each time. This adds a fort save (DC 15 iirc) so that might bring something better to the table than ruthlessly beating him with the PHB. Although that could be fun :plotting: :evillaugh :twocents:
HailSpork 04-09-05, 03:17 PM	If you really want, I can PM you my old severing/wounding rules. I won't post them though. There's something.... not right about posting these rules.
Abein 04-09-05, 03:45 PM	I would enjoy those rules HailSpork, he's looking for "Bloody realism" so any ideas are welcome if it'll get him off of his con=hp rule. He gets mad at me because I keep telling him it's not a good idea for balance. Any other ideas?
HailSpork 04-10-05, 12:41 AM	I had another request, and I couldn't remember the reason I didn't want to post it, so I did. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=411008 It's not really compatible with the "HP==Con score" rule. Perhaps if the threshold were equal to your con+ size mods?
Greyman 04-10-05, 03:21 AM	He now reaches the conclusion that your CON score is your hit points. Any ideas on how I should bring doubt to him?Just play along and show him how all your characters die of hideously unnecessary deaths because his ruling inevitably leads to early graves as soon as monster damage potential starts exceeding available CON scores at, oh, third level and higher.
prozacman 04-10-05, 05:34 AM	point out to him that a single maximised magic missle cast by a 9th level wizards could kill almost any character? what a 20th level dwarven fighter with a con of 20? a vorpal greataxe of killing stuff, and the annilus artifact? no biggie, i have magic missle memorised as a maximised spell wham bam, dead fighter, no attack roll, no save... just one dead badass
HailSpork 04-10-05, 06:28 AM	Even without maximizing, it's a minimum of 10 damage, and an average of 17.5. Scorching ray, at 7th level is a minimum of 8 damage, and an average of 28. There's two attack rolls, but they're touch, and they're a decent chance you only need one of them to hit (particularly if you have point blank shot).
lostone 04-10-05, 08:31 AM	Wow...sounds like your DM is lacking in common sense. One fireball cast by a 5th level wizard could wipe out the entire group with a decent damage roll, if it's a higher level wizard it's guaranteed to wipe out anyone who does not have improved evasion and a decent constitution. Also, by using this system it makes Con far more important than any other attribute, bypassing even strength for a melee character. It's ridiculous. Suddenly every non-melee character becomes a little more MAD, needing an additional good attribute to have a chance of surviving even a glancing blow at higher levels. At first level many characters will actually more hit points than normal for their class, but it sounds like that will not change with levels so by level 2 and 3 most charcters will be seriously lacking for hit points. Personally I say if the DM doesn't see reason, play the game, don't get attached to your character, and hopefully the DM will see the light when everyone dies before gaining fourth level.
Gilean 04-10-05, 09:44 AM	Instead, use massive damage threshold equals constitution, or level+constitution, or something. Also reduce the save DC to half damage dealt. Make feats that improve this, or let toughness improve it by a bit.
krichaiushii 04-10-05, 10:10 AM	Well, there is a chance the DM is going for lots of versimilitude in his game, and is trying to mimic the deadliness of combat. So, as long as he renders all creatures HP=Con, then things may balance out a bit. But only a bit. Then again, with HP=Con, he might be trying to encourage more roleplaying, with combat as a last, feared option (used after diplomacy, hiding, and running away). I read of a variant in FFG's Darkness and Dread (http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/dd47.html) (all OGC), wherein HP are replaced with Health. Health = (Constitution score x size factor) + HD or level. Size Factor Chart 1/8 Fine 1/8 Diminutive 1/4 Tiny 1/2 Small 1 Medium 2 Large 3 Huge 4 Gargantuan 5 Colossal This makes for a grim game, as death comes quickly to most creatures. It also makes having the right weapon to pierce DR a must. Another option in the same book discusses wound levels. As creatures lose more HP (or Health), they move from healthy to staggered to injured to critical to dead. As they move down the list, they begin to suffer cumulative penalties to attacks, checks, saves, physical stats, concentration DCs to cast spells, and those in the critical level have a chance to lose HP (or health) through bleeding. The former variant keeps the HP down and makes for simple math. The latter might actually complicate things with addtional paperwork, which I suspect your DM wants to avoid. Then again, Bastion Press has Torn Asunder: Critical Hits (http://www.bastionpress.com/Products/torn.htm) which provides rules for combat that may shorten things considerably. The healing rules therein are quite nice, too. If combat takes too much time, your DM might consider enforcing a time limit per PLAYER per combat round, instead of greatly reducing HP. Failure to act during that time limit results in the offending player's PC holding his action until s/he can think of something. Failure to think of something before the end of the round results in the PC standing there indecisively. Time limits I have encountered range from 6 seconds to 2 minutes. The time limit also forces EVERYONE to pay attention when its not their turn, if only to not lose initiative. Remember that focus is a good thing.
lostone 04-10-05, 10:24 AM	Another idea to speed up combat and make it more deadly. Instead of lowering hit points, increase damage. Maybe give everything an unnamed damage bonus equal to the ECL, or BAB of the creature, or an average of the two.
Abein 04-10-05, 03:20 PM	He indeed is thinking of giving everything a hit point score equal to Con, he had no idea how to impliment it with larger or smaller creatures and their adjusted totals (Thanks krichaiushii for your ideas). Any primary spellcaster now becomes way too awesome (not to mention magic missile happy mages) without refiguring damage his proposed system WILL NOT WORK WELL. I think he's just being a little nutty because he just came back from Iraq. He's making real world judgements and trying to impose them on a ficticious game (speaking of "realism" with regards to the human limits and not once considering the realism of magic or fantastic creatures). Not that I'm against houserules or him complaining about the length of combat, but like I said his last game was just silly because he had 2 inexperienced and bad players, a decent player and a good player- to top the normal "slowness" of combat off he gave everyone and everything max hp (Which is a practice he learned to like under my games I assume because it carried over to his own). He's just exaggerating what action needs to be taken to streamline combats. In the case that this isn't true the alternate ideas here have helped if I can't talk him out of making hamburger out of every PC. He seems to be turning into one of those DM's who only like and plan for games to go to 3rd level, then you start over. While I'm not against it-if I ever play DnD it's to feel like a hero (or a villan) and being a paper thin one doesn't help that sort of niche. PC death in my opinion happens from stupidity or bad luck, his rule allows for both of those and even just a single hit in nearly any combat. Turning every player into a meek and fearful/paranoid person doesn't sound like fun to me. Edit: Additionally to all this he wants to make magical healing LESS EFFECTIVE because he seems to think that would (coupled with the con=hp) inspire the RIGHT AMMOUNT of fear. He's gone overboard-I think.
lostone 04-10-05, 03:29 PM	You might want to point out to him that D&D characters are stereotypically heroes. And heroes in fantasy should not die easilly. If they are so fragile they will find it much harder to be brave and courageous. Also, if I were you I'd do my best to get regeneration somehow, because that will keep you in the game when you get critically hit or even a max damage hit.
Greyman 04-10-05, 09:53 PM	He indeed is thinking of giving everything a hit point score equal to Con, he had no idea how to impliment it with larger or smaller creatures and their adjusted totals (Thanks krichaiushii for your ideas).Uh... Undead and Constructs have no Constitution. Does he plan to use Charisma instead?
BladeBoy 04-10-05, 10:05 PM	perhaps he'll be stupid and be 0 Con= 0 hp to start? I mean, he's already seeming that dumb..
krichaiushii 04-10-05, 10:18 PM	Or perhaps he'll rule that undead and constructs cannot be destroyed by conventional means (like combat), but can only be locked away or banished via certain rituals. It would make for a very paranoid (and likely short) campaign, but it would be interesting to try it out. After all, popular games and game systems DO exist that result in quick death via combat, regardless of experience levels. These games would not exist if someone weren't buying them. Therefore, some people enjoy grim games where death is but one weapon stroke away, or where victory over the BBEG is not even remotely assured. Just not too many, because its harder to win that way. Being dead and all. ;)
BladeBoy 04-10-05, 10:49 PM	maybe he's desperate to kill the PCs, and then change all the rules to set up ghostwalk?
HailSpork 04-10-05, 11:17 PM	I've got it! He wants to run an undead game; First, he kills the party quickly due to their lack of HP, then he runs them as unkillable undead!
Abein 04-11-05, 09:28 PM	If it were only true, I love zombies, I really do.
weasel fierce 04-13-05, 12:40 AM	If he wants "bloody realism" then D&D is worthless to him. Get a copy of Runequest, Warhammer fantasy roleplay or GURPS. All of those do violent realism better than D&D, which is inherently set up to be heroic and over the top.
Greyman 04-13-05, 01:17 AM	The thing is, it's not gritty realism the DM is after, it appears to be simply shorter combat encounters.He's come from his last game a year and some change ago that he gave all players max hit points for each level, he came away from that experience tired of long combats, thinking that it needs to be cut down ...Basically the DM played a game where he effectively doubled everyone's rolled hit points and that convinced him that combat was too long. Instead of simply returning to the standard rules, to see how long combat lasts then, he's overcompensated too far towards the other extreme.
weasel fierce 04-13-05, 01:29 AM	well, in that case, I guess "show" beats "tell" Use a few characters and orcs or whatnot, and play through a battle, to show how long it takes. Easier that way.
lostone 04-13-05, 10:05 AM	The thing is, it's not gritty realism the DM is after, it appears to be simply shorter combat encounters.Basically the DM played a game where he effectively doubled everyone's rolled hit points and that convinced him that combat was too long. Instead of simply returning to the standard rules, to see how long combat lasts then, he's overcompensated too far towards the other extreme.Maybe if combat is lasting too long all you really need to do is focus as a group. Roll dice before your turn, be ready to tell the DM what you do when it is your turn, and roll damage dice before hand that way if you succeed in hitting you can tell him how much damage you did. If he's really worried about speed of combat a combat round using this will only be as slow as the DM who can't roll the NPC's during other peoples turns because he is dealing with the other people's turns. But my group has no problem with long combats, even fighting creatures of appropriate or higher CR they often win combat within a couple combat rounds, and unless it is a truly complicated scenario it never takes more than 10 minutes real time. We use the roll ahead option I listed above, the only times we wait are for me the DM, or a spellcaster reacting to something that happens just before his turn making him change the strategy he had planned ahead for. But then I trust my players and have them roll things ahead of time, they get just as many nat 1's as nat 20's so if they are fudging rolls they are fair about it (I don't think they are). If the characters are optimized properly combat should not take that long. Unless the DM is increasing the hitpoints of monsters far past what they should be to make them harder to kill, in which case he needs to drop the hitpoints to listed in the book and pick a tougher monster or raise the AC or damage of the monster a bit to make it more challenging.
Will Brandiman 04-13-05, 10:21 AM	Even at low levels I would be surprised if any combat lasted more than 3 rounds. At high levels, it's all down to initiative. Seriously, your DM's gone a bit nuts. Try to talk him down gently.
Will Brandiman 04-13-05, 10:23 AM	Roll dice before your turn, be ready to tell the DM what you do when it is your turn, and roll damage dice before hand That is something we would never do. Too many ways in which it could be abused.
glider007 04-13-05, 10:54 AM	I think it's a very good idea to use CON as hit points after a few adjustments, at least it will be interesting to try it out -very realistic like Rainbow Six games. Without any adjustments I don't think it'll be a fun game: 1-The armor needs to absorb some damage, because in real life that's what they do! For example every character gets DR 1/3 AC or DR1/2 of armor worn. 2-Everyone should start level 1 with their respective class hit dice. Fighters start with 10 hp+con modifier wizards 4hp + con modifier etc. Starting at level 2 give players only their CON modifiers as new hps. Every character should get at least their Constitution modifier as additional HPs at every new level. 3-If you are playing point by system every character should start at 10 CON before buying any attributes as opposed to 8. 4-Area effect spells do not damage anyone if they roll their save, no 1/2 damage on a successful save! A few more things like that...
lostone 04-13-05, 11:40 AM	Seriously, your DM's gone a bit nuts. Try to talk him down gently.And if that doesn't work, throw a burlap bag over his head and convince him to reconsider :evillaugh That is something we would never do. Too many ways in which it could be abused.Like I said, it comes down to trust. My group is compiled of casual players looking to relax and retreat from the daily grind. We want to have fun, and for us cheating isn't fun, because we don't feel like we earned the spoils of war. Plus there is no challenge if half your rolls are fudged, "Oh look, Joe got another nat 20...this is gonna be a short fight." :nonono:
HailSpork 04-14-05, 01:04 AM	So, Abien, when does this crazy game begin? Let us know how it turns out, ok?
ChimericalWolf 04-14-05, 02:08 AM	If I were you, I'd sit this one out, wait for the party to die, than offer to take over with a more rational game.
ElvishBard 04-24-05, 12:21 AM	What you should do is make a human fighter and take pure toughness, use a tower shield and a 1 handed weapon. You will have 9 more hp at first level, and if you have party members who use bows they can hide behind you and kill the enemy from far away. Then the DM will realize that it might be easier to just let you have standard hp or use a new system or have someone else DM.
lostone 04-24-05, 07:21 AM	What you should do is make a human fighter and take pure toughness, use a tower shield and a 1 handed weapon. You will have 9 more hp at first level, and if you have party members who use bows they can hide behind you and kill the enemy from far away.That's actually pretty clever...there are higher level version of toughness as well (in masters of the wild) if you can use those they will give you more hit points at a faster rate as you level up. Like the highest is Dragon's Toughness which IIRC requires a fortitude base bonus of 12 or so. That gives something like +12 hit points each time you take it. There are versions between Dragon's and normal Toughness as well giving +6 and +9 hit points IIRC. How is your DM doing hit points for monsters? Using their printed hit points or still maxing theirs out like he did for you previously, or is he also using their Con?
Rellik Laires 04-28-05, 04:26 AM	:crazy: ... how long has this guy been playing??? its either he is a total newb or he has no common sense. if he were to ever pick up a phb and look at a 1st level fighter that wields a great sword u will notice that he has init he can kill u with a single hit. those are one of those ideas that u think of and they say WTF was i thinking lol but u kno what there might be a way to work it. just sitting here for a second and trying to work it i migth have a way it could work. if you were to use a armour variant were certain types of armour give u DR/** as well as a few other things. but maybe each class would have a heath modifier. Maybe Barb x4 Fighter,Ranger,Cleric,Paladin,Monk x3 Druid,Rouge,Bard,x2 and Wiz, Sorc x1 now if you were to use your con as heath lets say i'm a Dwarven Fighter with a 16 con now 16 would be HP but with my fighter class that becomes x3 so my Hp after class will be 48. now this will be good for lower levels but when u reach level 4 and 5 it will be a pain it might add a few things like more Multi Classing but its still pretty much of a Throw away idea not worth the time and the pain. because every ecounter at lvl 1 and 2 would have no rish for u are this big brute and then at levels higher the 5. might Work very well for a Roleplaying campaigns too. Giving your players the free will to fight but not to because the risk of dying is to great and giving u more time to roleplay. but thats a throw away idea and just explain to your dm that dwarven wizard can have more HP then a Elven fighter and if he has any common sense at all he will just say o yea N/M. aight i'm done
SeveredMind 04-28-05, 07:50 PM	A DM friend of mine is brainstorming a new game. He's come from his last game a year and some change ago that he gave all players max hit points for each level, he came away from that experience tired of long combats, thinking that it needs to be cut down (He had moderately experienced to moderately inexperienced players). That thought in and of itself should have allowed him to reach the conclusion that he should roll for HP or take average instead (effectively cutting combats in half, for good or for ill), he believe combat should be more deadly, and because of that shorter, I suggested the vitality/wound system and he said it was too complex. He now reaches the conclusion that your CON score is your hit points. Any ideas on how I should bring doubt to him? Any opinions? Um...I would just poke him in the eye with a stick until he changes his mind.