Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Misterfido 10-30-07, 01:54 PM	I was thinking at work (factory work gives me time to think...) of house rules to simplify D&D rules... this was one of the more interesting ones, wanted opinions. Maybe not exactly as written but something similar. Creatures get a Health score equal to their BAB (1:1 for fighter-types, 3:4 for cleric-types, and 1:2 for wizard-types) plus their 1-1/2 times their Constitution modifier. Characters attack and roll damage as normal. But it's only damage which exceeds the Health score which does any damage--lowering the Health score by the exceeded amount. Getting a creature to 0 knocks it out, at which point it bleeds to death within 1d4 minutes. This combines the concepts of damage reduction and hit points into one unit. It also provides an interesting interplay between casters and fighters: normally, a fighter just has to keep hacking until something dies. But against a red dragon wyrm with 50 Health... until the caster throws a nice ice storm that way. It also adds some gruesome, yet fun, realism: stabbing an orc becomes more and more powerful with each stab, which is somewhat exciting, as it bleeds out from each wound and becomes more and more pained. Also, simpler than alternate HP systems in Urban Arcana, at least as far as I see... However, I'm aware there are flaws to this system, such as wizards dealing 50+ damage per attack ruining many villain encounters, or low-level characters possibly not being able to overcome enemy Health... Still, with modifications, does anyone think this system has merit?
vorpo 10-30-07, 02:57 PM	Remember that all the damages from weapons, spells or other sources are designed with the current HP system in mind. Messing with it means you also have to mess with all the other aspects too
Xaer 10-30-07, 02:57 PM	I think it has merit, though needs a good bit of acid testing. Generic ideas(only tested in head): -Health Score is instead: BAB+(CON-10) Reasoning: Easier to determine, Makes single point CON increases worthwhile. -Effects that add DR ad a bonus to Health instead. Reasoning: Consolidate redundant stats into one. -Natural AC bonuses instead add to Health Reasoning: Natural AC is defense based on toughness, hence it should be consolidated into health. -Damage Spells need a tonedown, perhaps change the xd6 damage spells to x+ATT, where ATT is the casting attribute modifier. Reasoning: Prevent caster overpoweredness. As said, all this needs acid testing, but it's what I've got so far.
Killy 10-30-07, 03:36 PM	Power attack needs to be changed: * Light Weapons: Add to damage 1/2 the attack penalty taken. * One Handed Weapons: Add to damage the attack penalty taken. * Two Handed Weapons: Add to damage 1 and a half the attack penalty taken. Critical hits and damage multipliers (charge, spells, etc.) affect only the dice damage related to the Weapon, not external sources of damage. * Weapon enhancement, Power Attack damage, Strenght modifier, Weapon Specialization feat tree, etc. no longer multiply their value on a succesful critical hit or multiplied damage hit. Damage spells and metamagic need to be toned down. * All spells that deal damage have their damage dice reduced to the lower one, per example instead of d6 a d4 is used. Maximize Spell, Empower Spell, Twin Spell, and the like are no longer available. Like this, there are other modifications necessary... Its a bad idea to transform Natural Armor into Health.
Rustmonster 10-30-07, 04:25 PM	I was thinking at work (factory work gives me time to think...) of house rules to simplify D&D rules... this was one of the more interesting ones, wanted opinions. Maybe not exactly as written but something similar. Creatures get a Health score equal to their BAB (1:1 for fighter-types, 3:4 for cleric-types, and 1:2 for wizard-types) plus their 1-1/2 times their Constitution modifier. Characters attack and roll damage as normal. But it's only damage which exceeds the Health score which does any damage--lowering the Health score by the exceeded amount. Getting a creature to 0 knocks it out, at which point it bleeds to death within 1d4 minutes. This combines the concepts of damage reduction and hit points into one unit. It also provides an interesting interplay between casters and fighters: normally, a fighter just has to keep hacking until something dies. But against a red dragon wyrm with 50 Health... until the caster throws a nice ice storm that way. It also adds some gruesome, yet fun, realism: stabbing an orc becomes more and more powerful with each stab, which is somewhat exciting, as it bleeds out from each wound and becomes more and more pained. Also, simpler than alternate HP systems in Urban Arcana, at least as far as I see... However, I'm aware there are flaws to this system, such as wizards dealing 50+ damage per attack ruining many villain encounters, or low-level characters possibly not being able to overcome enemy Health... Still, with modifications, does anyone think this system has merit? I understand what you are getting at here, but it's got some stuff that doesn't sound right. I means that at high levels, you need to REALLY be able to pump out the damage to be ANY use when attacking. Some classes may not be able to put out the damage needed (Example: Bard) Condcider that now, if you don't get over your opponents health, a hit will be completly useless. You can hit over and over and over, but nothing will happen. Pehaps there is a minimum one damage always dealt to health on a hit? Or maybe they take a penalty the next time someone hits, equal to half the damage roll that didn't get through? Also, how will healing spells work in this system? I still must say, it sounds an interesting idea.
Misterfido 10-30-07, 07:04 PM	Hm. Well I actually typed up a whole response to all the notes that have been raised in regards to my idea, but here's a faster, easier response: Health score: Con score + BAB + size modifier to Grapple checks Deal damage equal to (normal damage) - (Health score), minimum equal to Strength bonus applied to damage, or Dexterity bonus applied to attack, or Spell Level--whichever is highest and applicable. Damage reduction stays separate of Health, but doesn't stack. The Health or the DR, whichever is higher, reduces the damage. Thus, even though you've wittled that golem to 1 Health, it's still going to take a resounding hit to kill it--no pebble-throwing kills for you! Removing natural armor and adding it to Health only sounds good until you realize a lot of monsters have a 30 Armor based entirely off natural armor. Besides, natural armor includes spiny protrusions and thick bone plates--you attack those, even if it's injured, you may as well have missed! I suggest that you compromise and do the Armor as Damage Reduction house rule from UA. But that's your option. I fought a white dragon adult against a 10th-level wizard under this system, refining the formula with that until it approximated the same number of fireball-frost breath rounds-to-death. But in fights between lower-level characters, especially fighter-types, there was the problem of not dealing damage--so I implemented the aforementioned minimum damage rule. Fights at lower-levels last longer but... this actually is a good thing. Lower levels were far too random and difficult to be fun--you kill the orc in 2 rounds, he kills you in 2 rounds, same probability, no chance to realize you're going to die and escape. Here, there's a difference. Healing spells heal the spell level of the healing spell (1 for light, 2 for moderate, etc), in order to maintain the fact that current healing spells get more and more expensive in return for small boosts of healing. Natural healing uses your Con modifier instead of your HD. I've tried to think things through as well as possible. It seems pretty well balanced and integrated, though I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions.
Rustmonster 10-31-07, 09:12 AM	Health score: Con score + BAB + size modifier to Grapple checks Deal damage equal to (normal damage) - (Health score), minimum equal to Strength bonus applied to damage, or Dexterity bonus applied to attack, or Spell Level--whichever is highest and applicable. That is starting to seem better, but what if they have no bonus? Say, attacking with 10 strength? I'd think most of the "not causing damage" problems come from those without bonuses anyway.
Misterfido 10-31-07, 04:25 PM	Well let's see... take a large creature without damage reduction that we can all imagine, like a large bear such as a grizzly or kodiak. 10 strength means that, if it's at full health, the typical, non-working-out type could swing a club at it, it could pretty much just stand there and you could hit it for quite a while not injure it in the least--unless you critical and hit it in the back of the head or whatever. That image seems about right in my head. Weaklings don't injure powerful beings--thick skin/fur + boundless muscles + thick bones + combat experience mean most creatures can just shrug off pathetic attacks. Someone with 10 Strength should be attacking with a Dexterity-based weapon, or their spellcasting ability. So when I playtest this with my group, I'm going to make the minimum 0 damage. Yes, yes, this means that the party computer nerd (read: wizard) can't hit the full-plate toting half-dragon wrestler with a quarterstaff until the half-dragon collapses. But I find that fitting. If the wizard wants to injure that wrestler, grab a crossbow is all. However, I see the point in wanting all players to be somewhat useful in all circumstance, so I can easily imagine you setting up a minimum 1 damage rule. I just personally don't like it that much... at least, until I playtest.
Misterfido 10-31-07, 04:29 PM	Ah, though, enhancement bonuses could be another minimum