bad "low-level" campaign idea? [Archive] - Wizards Community

bad "low-level" campaign idea? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
EggytheGreen
09-25-06, 07:49 PM for quick read, skip first paragraph
|--------so, I was going to be the DM, but, there are a couple of things that I don't like about D&D....the game is fine when you're playing, but if I have the power to change it (being the DM) then I will. the 2 aspects of the game that I have a problem with are HP and AC. I don't like the randomness of attacks, defense, and dice-rolling, but since this aspect is firmly ingraved into the system I will leave AC as is. HP however, is a different story - it is constantly changing through level up and being damaged, so its easy to manipulate. my problem with HP is that it increases so much. I don't like the idea that a level 10 wizard can take 3 stabs in the back, then be like 'c'mon! I can take another hit!'. this is just an example, but for the most part leveling should be a sign of how well your skills have improved, not how much muscle-armor or whatever you've gained. farmers working hard days and eating well should not be so much weaker than a mage who studies books all day and forgets to eat sometimes.
|--------anyway, the idea is to severely limit HP growth. mage-types gain 0 HP at level up, fighter-types gain 2 HP at level up, the rest gain 1 HP. no constition bonus to HP. to compensate, characters would get damage reduction directly based on how much AC they have and how successful the attack was against them (if the attacker just barely hit [1 over the AC], the character getting hit would have more damage reduction than if the attacker made a decent hit [4 over the AC]). things like spellcasting and sneak attacking would be limited so that level 4 or so is the max for caster level and similar. characters would for the most part still get to level up as per normal. unsure if monsters/opponents would also go by these rules, but probably most humanoids would. my brother says this is a stupid idea (which he elaborated in some detail but failed to sway me logically), but he is biased as he prefers high-level campaigns. is this such a horribly stupid idea, or just one that takes preparation (which I don't mind)? please explain. thank you for your time.
DarkNick
09-25-06, 08:00 PM How would the damage reductions work so that it is all balanced?

How will you deal with a 4th level mage being able to kill 2 people with a simple magic missile spell?

If you don't like the randomness of dice rolling then why don't you go diceless?

HPs is an abstract system, it is not based on reality. A 10th level commoner could have more HPs than a 10th level mage anyway. A 10th level mage getting stabbed in the back by another 10th level character is probably not going to survive.

I think it would take too much work to do what your suggesting and balance it all. People won't get hit very often, but when they do they are pretty much screwed. Combats could be frustrating with nothing much happening untill that one hit gets through. A high level character could get done over by a comparative weakling. Sounds fun.
You might as well just scrap going up levels, or make it that you only gain skills for going up levels and nothing else. This would achieve all you want to achieve though creates a bias for classes that get lots of skills.

Why don't you just pick another system that better suits your needs. There are systems out there that already do what you want.
HamHam
09-25-06, 08:02 PM It's not so much stupid as it is pointless.

You're essentially mimicing the numerical result of the normal HP system with a more complicated method.

The simple fact is that HP is not just taking hits but avoiding them as well. This is more obvious in d20 systems that differentiate between Vitality and Wound points, but the normal HP system represents both of those.

It's like in Star Wars. When the main characters are running around and the Stormtroopers are shooting up every inch of the corridor except where the characters happen to be, the characters are in fact taking Hit Point damage. And when they run low on hit points, they actually get hit.
Aeromus
09-25-06, 08:05 PM Unearthed Arcana has your answer.

Falling damage, and falling object damage need work.
Alacar_Deathstone
09-25-06, 08:09 PM my problem with HP is that it increases so much. I don't like the idea that a level 10 wizard can take 3 stabs in the back, then be like 'c'mon! I can take another hit!'.

Alright, I've seen this argument so many times, people just don't seem to understand: Hit Points are NOT a direct physical representation of how many punches or stabs you can actually withstand being hit by. It is your ability AVOID mortal damage. That is why Armor affects your AC, and Dexterity affects your AC. This is why your Hit Points DO increase as you level; a fighter quickly becomes more adept at avoiding deathblows as he trains and becomes more used to combat. A wizard on the other hand, does not gain this ability as fast, as combat is not the main focus of said class.

How much have you played the game? It is a common mistake to begin playing the game, and want to change everything to be perfect. Make sure you understand all the rules involved, and the implications behind all of your changes. Why would it NOT affect monsters? They would follow the same set of world-governing laws of life that your players would.

Really, Hit Points do not represent a Wizard's ability to get stabbed in the back 3 times.
justdmjeff
09-25-06, 08:12 PM Just my opinion.
There are no stupid ideas for a DM. That being said if your players do not find it fun, it is not the right idea for that campaign or group of players. What I like to do when I want to make a major rule change for a campaign is let my players come up with the next major rule change. You would be suprised how often rule changes seem great in theory but are horrible in practice.
Lord_Varos
09-25-06, 08:37 PM When your players show up and get ready to play, begin cutting your wrists. Not simple slicing, but full-power ka-bar, bone-cutting wrist-slitting.

Whenever your players roll for attacks, make them roll a d4 instead of a d20.

Play music so loud that your players cannot hear you, and the miniatures shake on the table.

Change the entire rule system so that it resembles another RPG entirely, but with different names and no rulebooks that match your rules.

There are no stupid ideas for a DM.
Yeah, okay.

If this rule is implemented, I predict that it will be awful in the execution. And I bet your Wizard will be cheesed off that a single blow kills him at any level.

That oughta teach those f***in Wizards to get hit in MY campaign!
grandaustino
09-25-06, 08:54 PM You may want to consider implementing the wound vitality system in your game, It's a good play tested solution to your problem. Plus is solves a lot of the problems such as the falling damage debacle. If you make falling damage wound damage your fighter is going to think twice before leaping off that mountain!!! Keep in mind though that this makes the game conciserably more deadly, and untill you get the hang of CR's and monster abilities it can be risky for your players. Try running some mock battles and see how you like it. (Note: Be really careful with abilities that increase crit range, they can be really really powerful). If you are going to use the Wound/Vitality system, try rolling 2d10 to hit instead of 1d20, it gives a much more normalized result and you don't have your mega ranger tossing swords around 5% of the time and enemys killing you stone dead 5% of the time.
justdmjeff
09-25-06, 09:05 PM Hey Varos. Did you read my whole post or just the parts that suited your need to rant? Those ideas you had are not stupid. I would not use them personally, but that is because I do not see how they make the game more fun. You let me know how it works out for you.
Just my opinion.
Cold Napalm
09-25-06, 09:38 PM Umm I'm going with BAD idea. Okay so a level 20 wizard has 4 hp. A level 20 fighter has 28 hp...so The wizard casts one fireball and a level 20 fighter dies?!? A level 20 wizard gets hit by a commer with his dagger and dies?!? Because you know a barrier that a level 20 wizard errects has a 5% chance that a commoner will pierce it and kill him. This isn't realism, this is sure stupidly balanced system. You want realism? Let see, make shield into an active defense item. Use the hero hit chart and any body/head hit = instant death for anyone. Oh yeah that should be loads of fun :rolleyes: . Guess what, fighting for your life in real life isn't fun and you should not be trying to recreate that in a game. If you want your PC to die more often, use vitality. If that's not often enough, just roll a dice point and say you die and laugh manically (at which point I hope your player beat you to death with their books). If you must come up with a system, then at least THINK about it before posting here for review for crying out loud.
DarkNick
09-25-06, 10:08 PM Those ideas you had are not stupid. I would not use them personally, but that is because I do not see how they make the game more fun. You let me know how it works out for you.
Just my opinion.

I'm with justdmjeff here. If you think it will be fun then go for it. Just make sure you play test it a little - run some senarios, ask the "what if's" . Maybe get some dudes together and work on it together - play a few games and mod rules as you go untill you get the right feel.
Lord_Varos
09-25-06, 11:06 PM Alright, I see what you mean about quoting you incompletely.
There are no stupid ideas for a DM. That being said if your players do not find it fun, it is not the right idea for that campaign or group of players.
Fair enough. But just because it's possible to try something doesn't make it not stupid. If your players like never hitting their opponents, then by all means, roll d4's for your PCs' attacks. If you like pain and dying, then go ahead and bleed yourself dry with a knife. If you have fun not being able to communicate with one another, then feel free to play music so loud that it you can feel it in your hair. But just because there is some slight chance that it would be enjoyable does not mean it is smart to do. My point was not that it was impossible to have fun doing such, just that it was unlikely and problematic, and was a very bad idea as such.
but varos those things r rly xtrem n not the same as changeing all teh rulz!!!!!!!!! and i dont cut myself my dad was lieing.............
Well, it's not that different. Changing the rules in a very extensive manner that won't improve realism or smoothness (which are, IMO, the two goals of an RPG rules system, besides customizability) causes an undue headache for your players and spends valuable game time on getting used to these rules, and there's already a perfectly usable, balanced, smooth hit points system.

And now, let's bring it together: Almost 100% of D&D's imagery is delivered by description and imagination, rather than changes in the rules system. If you don't like the fact that a level 10 Wizard can be struck three times in combat and survive, then describe hit points being lost as the Wizard twisting and moving out of the way, while still concentrating on the battle. The Wizard's energy is still being used to keep damage from killing him, but you needn't describe it as "You are hit in the back by three broad sword blows, rending your flesh and spilling your black-red blood. Okay, your turn."

Hey Varos. Did you read my whole post or just the parts that suited your need to rant?
Actually, I read every single post on the entire thread, down to the last word, like I always do, and evaluated your point as a whole. However, and I see this argument far too often on these boards, just because I quoted only a single thought from your post does not mean that I'm trying to take your words out of context to cheat my point into the spotlight. It merely means that, rather than quote your entire post and leave you guessing as to which point I'm refuting, I chose to break down your argument and dispute it on a more fundamental level rather than say, "Here's your entire post, read something you already read again. I think you're wrong."

I'm not saying that the OP is stupid. I said that the idea of completely recreating something so basic in D&D as the hitpoint system and the Damage Reduction system to go along with it, especially only applying it to character levels and not monsters, is a foolish endeavor.
And besides, the title of the thread is "bad 'low-level' campaign idea?". My answer was "yes", and rather than argue, you simply tried to insult my intelligence and ability to reason by claiming that I skimmed your post and then just wrote a "rant". Please don't stoop to this. I'd like to think that we as fellow D&D nerds would be able to step above such things, but I've been wrong before, and will be wrong again.

As grandaustino said, try wounds/vitality and 2d10 rolling. These have been tested and wrote about, and will be much, much more likely to give you the result you need than your hp/DR changes.

Edit: Two huge, glaring typos.
justdmjeff
09-25-06, 11:42 PM Sorry, Lord Varos, if you felt I insulted your intelligence. That being said the main point of my original post was "try it, you might possibly, maybe, but probably not, like it" I'm just saying that if no one tried anything different we would all be sending up smoke signals discussing the virtues of Gary Gygax's original game and wondering if there was a better way to make a roll to check if my 5th level thief could climb 20ft up a wall to disable a trap while a goblin is throwing rocks at him and a spider is climbing down towards him. Oh by the way the device you need to disable is moving.
small note: I do not go back far enough to have played the original, this encounter may be covered in the rules.
Just my opinion.
pmurray@bigpond.com
09-26-06, 12:00 AM Make it that hits do constitution damage, if that's what you want, and didtch hitpoints entirely.

I personally think that "negative HP" is ridiculous. A possible system is that when you are reduced to zero you start taking CON damage. Forget unconciousness. HP therefore means "how much fighting you can do before your opponent starts getting through your guard and seriously hurting you". You might also have critical hits do Con damage equal to the critical hit multiplier on the weapon.

I think Star Wars has a similar system. CON damage from melee makes sense.
MaximumPain
09-26-06, 12:21 AM I agree with the OP that the HP and AC systems are “unrealistic” but this is supposed to represent high fantasy and legendary heroes. In real life any one can die from one hit and those who live in an age without antibiotics can die in a few days from even a cut on the arm and almost any belly wound is automatic and painful death. The AC and HP systems where the exact reason I used to hate D&D I couldn’t stand that a man in full plate seemed to be dodging about while an unarmored man was hit almost every swing. That is why GURPS was my game of choice for many years the combat system was gritty and quite realistic. I finally switched to D&D because it has a much better magic system, and lots of great source material, and they at least fixed the tactical combat system to be somewhat realistic. I have often thought of how to add DR to the armor system and some more lethality to the wounding system but I realized that the players are going to get hit thousands of more times than any individual monster so if the system is too realistic the characters will die and often. By all means try to create the system you want to use just make sure you play-test it well and make sure your players will have fun.
dizfactor
09-26-06, 03:58 AM Use the Vitality Point/Wound Point system instead, and have a class-based Defense bonus replace AC. Armor would then provide DR.
CharlieRock
09-26-06, 09:31 AM Or, work in a way that after Xx% of HP loss certain stats drop. Certainly Con would drop, Str and Dex to a good degree as well. Really if you took a chop to the stomach, your not going to be flipping and jumping as fast.Or swinging quite as hard. And any con based skils would realistically be severely effected by massive blood loss.
Futuredevguy
09-26-06, 10:52 AM Or, work in a way that after Xx% of HP loss certain stats drop. Certainly Con would drop, Str and Dex to a good degree as well. Really if you took a chop to the stomach, your not going to be flipping and jumping as fast.Or swinging quite as hard. And any con based skils would realistically be severely effected by massive blood loss.
I had posted a Critical Hit Variant last week that worked like this.
Critical Hit Variant
Objective of this variant:
To make available an additional layer of challenge/lethality to standard D&D combat for DM’s and players that want more of that kind of thing.

Mechanics of the variant:
Instead of the damage from a successful crit being applied to the targets HP, the damage is spread out as ability damage across the strength, dexterity and constitution scores (The player receiving the damage decides how much of the damage is applied to what attribute. ALL damage must be applied.).

Miscellaneous Notes:
I got the idea as I was browsing through an old edition of a SF game called Traveller. It was how that game system handled combat.

And yes, I realize the following things:
1) This method would probably make for a more lethal game as it would effect the PC’s many more times then it would the baddies.
2) That it would make Higher CR creatures easier to take down and lower ones tougher.
3) That it would make for more book keeping on all concerned (players and DM)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
EggytheGreen 09-25-06, 07:49 PM	for quick read, skip first paragraph \|--------so, I was going to be the DM, but, there are a couple of things that I don't like about D&D....the game is fine when you're playing, but if I have the power to change it (being the DM) then I will. the 2 aspects of the game that I have a problem with are HP and AC. I don't like the randomness of attacks, defense, and dice-rolling, but since this aspect is firmly ingraved into the system I will leave AC as is. HP however, is a different story - it is constantly changing through level up and being damaged, so its easy to manipulate. my problem with HP is that it increases so much. I don't like the idea that a level 10 wizard can take 3 stabs in the back, then be like 'c'mon! I can take another hit!'. this is just an example, but for the most part leveling should be a sign of how well your skills have improved, not how much muscle-armor or whatever you've gained. farmers working hard days and eating well should not be so much weaker than a mage who studies books all day and forgets to eat sometimes. \|--------anyway, the idea is to severely limit HP growth. mage-types gain 0 HP at level up, fighter-types gain 2 HP at level up, the rest gain 1 HP. no constition bonus to HP. to compensate, characters would get damage reduction directly based on how much AC they have and how successful the attack was against them (if the attacker just barely hit [1 over the AC], the character getting hit would have more damage reduction than if the attacker made a decent hit [4 over the AC]). things like spellcasting and sneak attacking would be limited so that level 4 or so is the max for caster level and similar. characters would for the most part still get to level up as per normal. unsure if monsters/opponents would also go by these rules, but probably most humanoids would. my brother says this is a stupid idea (which he elaborated in some detail but failed to sway me logically), but he is biased as he prefers high-level campaigns. is this such a horribly stupid idea, or just one that takes preparation (which I don't mind)? please explain. thank you for your time.
DarkNick 09-25-06, 08:00 PM	How would the damage reductions work so that it is all balanced? How will you deal with a 4th level mage being able to kill 2 people with a simple magic missile spell? If you don't like the randomness of dice rolling then why don't you go diceless? HPs is an abstract system, it is not based on reality. A 10th level commoner could have more HPs than a 10th level mage anyway. A 10th level mage getting stabbed in the back by another 10th level character is probably not going to survive. I think it would take too much work to do what your suggesting and balance it all. People won't get hit very often, but when they do they are pretty much screwed. Combats could be frustrating with nothing much happening untill that one hit gets through. A high level character could get done over by a comparative weakling. Sounds fun. You might as well just scrap going up levels, or make it that you only gain skills for going up levels and nothing else. This would achieve all you want to achieve though creates a bias for classes that get lots of skills. Why don't you just pick another system that better suits your needs. There are systems out there that already do what you want.
HamHam 09-25-06, 08:02 PM	It's not so much stupid as it is pointless. You're essentially mimicing the numerical result of the normal HP system with a more complicated method. The simple fact is that HP is not just taking hits but avoiding them as well. This is more obvious in d20 systems that differentiate between Vitality and Wound points, but the normal HP system represents both of those. It's like in Star Wars. When the main characters are running around and the Stormtroopers are shooting up every inch of the corridor except where the characters happen to be, the characters are in fact taking Hit Point damage. And when they run low on hit points, they actually get hit.
Aeromus 09-25-06, 08:05 PM	Unearthed Arcana has your answer. Falling damage, and falling object damage need work.
Alacar_Deathstone 09-25-06, 08:09 PM	my problem with HP is that it increases so much. I don't like the idea that a level 10 wizard can take 3 stabs in the back, then be like 'c'mon! I can take another hit!'. Alright, I've seen this argument so many times, people just don't seem to understand: Hit Points are NOT a direct physical representation of how many punches or stabs you can actually withstand being hit by. It is your ability AVOID mortal damage. That is why Armor affects your AC, and Dexterity affects your AC. This is why your Hit Points DO increase as you level; a fighter quickly becomes more adept at avoiding deathblows as he trains and becomes more used to combat. A wizard on the other hand, does not gain this ability as fast, as combat is not the main focus of said class. How much have you played the game? It is a common mistake to begin playing the game, and want to change everything to be perfect. Make sure you understand all the rules involved, and the implications behind all of your changes. Why would it NOT affect monsters? They would follow the same set of world-governing laws of life that your players would. Really, Hit Points do not represent a Wizard's ability to get stabbed in the back 3 times.
justdmjeff 09-25-06, 08:12 PM	Just my opinion. There are no stupid ideas for a DM. That being said if your players do not find it fun, it is not the right idea for that campaign or group of players. What I like to do when I want to make a major rule change for a campaign is let my players come up with the next major rule change. You would be suprised how often rule changes seem great in theory but are horrible in practice.
Lord_Varos 09-25-06, 08:37 PM	When your players show up and get ready to play, begin cutting your wrists. Not simple slicing, but full-power ka-bar, bone-cutting wrist-slitting. Whenever your players roll for attacks, make them roll a d4 instead of a d20. Play music so loud that your players cannot hear you, and the miniatures shake on the table. Change the entire rule system so that it resembles another RPG entirely, but with different names and no rulebooks that match your rules. There are no stupid ideas for a DM. Yeah, okay. If this rule is implemented, I predict that it will be awful in the execution. And I bet your Wizard will be cheesed off that a single blow kills him at any level. That oughta teach those f***in Wizards to get hit in MY campaign!
grandaustino 09-25-06, 08:54 PM	You may want to consider implementing the wound vitality system in your game, It's a good play tested solution to your problem. Plus is solves a lot of the problems such as the falling damage debacle. If you make falling damage wound damage your fighter is going to think twice before leaping off that mountain!!! Keep in mind though that this makes the game conciserably more deadly, and untill you get the hang of CR's and monster abilities it can be risky for your players. Try running some mock battles and see how you like it. (Note: Be really careful with abilities that increase crit range, they can be really really powerful). If you are going to use the Wound/Vitality system, try rolling 2d10 to hit instead of 1d20, it gives a much more normalized result and you don't have your mega ranger tossing swords around 5% of the time and enemys killing you stone dead 5% of the time.
justdmjeff 09-25-06, 09:05 PM	Hey Varos. Did you read my whole post or just the parts that suited your need to rant? Those ideas you had are not stupid. I would not use them personally, but that is because I do not see how they make the game more fun. You let me know how it works out for you. Just my opinion.
Cold Napalm 09-25-06, 09:38 PM	Umm I'm going with BAD idea. Okay so a level 20 wizard has 4 hp. A level 20 fighter has 28 hp...so The wizard casts one fireball and a level 20 fighter dies?!? A level 20 wizard gets hit by a commer with his dagger and dies?!? Because you know a barrier that a level 20 wizard errects has a 5% chance that a commoner will pierce it and kill him. This isn't realism, this is sure stupidly balanced system. You want realism? Let see, make shield into an active defense item. Use the hero hit chart and any body/head hit = instant death for anyone. Oh yeah that should be loads of fun :rolleyes: . Guess what, fighting for your life in real life isn't fun and you should not be trying to recreate that in a game. If you want your PC to die more often, use vitality. If that's not often enough, just roll a dice point and say you die and laugh manically (at which point I hope your player beat you to death with their books). If you must come up with a system, then at least THINK about it before posting here for review for crying out loud.
DarkNick 09-25-06, 10:08 PM	Those ideas you had are not stupid. I would not use them personally, but that is because I do not see how they make the game more fun. You let me know how it works out for you. Just my opinion. I'm with justdmjeff here. If you think it will be fun then go for it. Just make sure you play test it a little - run some senarios, ask the "what if's" . Maybe get some dudes together and work on it together - play a few games and mod rules as you go untill you get the right feel.
Lord_Varos 09-25-06, 11:06 PM	Alright, I see what you mean about quoting you incompletely. There are no stupid ideas for a DM. That being said if your players do not find it fun, it is not the right idea for that campaign or group of players. Fair enough. But just because it's possible to try something doesn't make it not stupid. If your players like never hitting their opponents, then by all means, roll d4's for your PCs' attacks. If you like pain and dying, then go ahead and bleed yourself dry with a knife. If you have fun not being able to communicate with one another, then feel free to play music so loud that it you can feel it in your hair. But just because there is some slight chance that it would be enjoyable does not mean it is smart to do. My point was not that it was impossible to have fun doing such, just that it was unlikely and problematic, and was a very bad idea as such. but varos those things r rly xtrem n not the same as changeing all teh rulz!!!!!!!!! and i dont cut myself my dad was lieing............. Well, it's not that different. Changing the rules in a very extensive manner that won't improve realism or smoothness (which are, IMO, the two goals of an RPG rules system, besides customizability) causes an undue headache for your players and spends valuable game time on getting used to these rules, and there's already a perfectly usable, balanced, smooth hit points system. And now, let's bring it together: Almost 100% of D&D's imagery is delivered by description and imagination, rather than changes in the rules system. If you don't like the fact that a level 10 Wizard can be struck three times in combat and survive, then describe hit points being lost as the Wizard twisting and moving out of the way, while still concentrating on the battle. The Wizard's energy is still being used to keep damage from killing him, but you needn't describe it as "You are hit in the back by three broad sword blows, rending your flesh and spilling your black-red blood. Okay, your turn." Hey Varos. Did you read my whole post or just the parts that suited your need to rant? Actually, I read every single post on the entire thread, down to the last word, like I always do, and evaluated your point as a whole. However, and I see this argument far too often on these boards, just because I quoted only a single thought from your post does not mean that I'm trying to take your words out of context to cheat my point into the spotlight. It merely means that, rather than quote your entire post and leave you guessing as to which point I'm refuting, I chose to break down your argument and dispute it on a more fundamental level rather than say, "Here's your entire post, read something you already read again. I think you're wrong." I'm not saying that the OP is stupid. I said that the idea of completely recreating something so basic in D&D as the hitpoint system and the Damage Reduction system to go along with it, especially only applying it to character levels and not monsters, is a foolish endeavor. And besides, the title of the thread is "bad 'low-level' campaign idea?". My answer was "yes", and rather than argue, you simply tried to insult my intelligence and ability to reason by claiming that I skimmed your post and then just wrote a "rant". Please don't stoop to this. I'd like to think that we as fellow D&D nerds would be able to step above such things, but I've been wrong before, and will be wrong again. As grandaustino said, try wounds/vitality and 2d10 rolling. These have been tested and wrote about, and will be much, much more likely to give you the result you need than your hp/DR changes. Edit: Two huge, glaring typos.
justdmjeff 09-25-06, 11:42 PM	Sorry, Lord Varos, if you felt I insulted your intelligence. That being said the main point of my original post was "try it, you might possibly, maybe, but probably not, like it" I'm just saying that if no one tried anything different we would all be sending up smoke signals discussing the virtues of Gary Gygax's original game and wondering if there was a better way to make a roll to check if my 5th level thief could climb 20ft up a wall to disable a trap while a goblin is throwing rocks at him and a spider is climbing down towards him. Oh by the way the device you need to disable is moving. small note: I do not go back far enough to have played the original, this encounter may be covered in the rules. Just my opinion.
pmurray@bigpond.com 09-26-06, 12:00 AM	Make it that hits do constitution damage, if that's what you want, and didtch hitpoints entirely. I personally think that "negative HP" is ridiculous. A possible system is that when you are reduced to zero you start taking CON damage. Forget unconciousness. HP therefore means "how much fighting you can do before your opponent starts getting through your guard and seriously hurting you". You might also have critical hits do Con damage equal to the critical hit multiplier on the weapon. I think Star Wars has a similar system. CON damage from melee makes sense.
MaximumPain 09-26-06, 12:21 AM	I agree with the OP that the HP and AC systems are “unrealistic” but this is supposed to represent high fantasy and legendary heroes. In real life any one can die from one hit and those who live in an age without antibiotics can die in a few days from even a cut on the arm and almost any belly wound is automatic and painful death. The AC and HP systems where the exact reason I used to hate D&D I couldn’t stand that a man in full plate seemed to be dodging about while an unarmored man was hit almost every swing. That is why GURPS was my game of choice for many years the combat system was gritty and quite realistic. I finally switched to D&D because it has a much better magic system, and lots of great source material, and they at least fixed the tactical combat system to be somewhat realistic. I have often thought of how to add DR to the armor system and some more lethality to the wounding system but I realized that the players are going to get hit thousands of more times than any individual monster so if the system is too realistic the characters will die and often. By all means try to create the system you want to use just make sure you play-test it well and make sure your players will have fun.
dizfactor 09-26-06, 03:58 AM	Use the Vitality Point/Wound Point system instead, and have a class-based Defense bonus replace AC. Armor would then provide DR.
CharlieRock 09-26-06, 09:31 AM	Or, work in a way that after Xx% of HP loss certain stats drop. Certainly Con would drop, Str and Dex to a good degree as well. Really if you took a chop to the stomach, your not going to be flipping and jumping as fast.Or swinging quite as hard. And any con based skils would realistically be severely effected by massive blood loss.
Futuredevguy 09-26-06, 10:52 AM	Or, work in a way that after Xx% of HP loss certain stats drop. Certainly Con would drop, Str and Dex to a good degree as well. Really if you took a chop to the stomach, your not going to be flipping and jumping as fast.Or swinging quite as hard. And any con based skils would realistically be severely effected by massive blood loss. I had posted a Critical Hit Variant last week that worked like this. Critical Hit Variant Objective of this variant: To make available an additional layer of challenge/lethality to standard D&D combat for DM’s and players that want more of that kind of thing. Mechanics of the variant: Instead of the damage from a successful crit being applied to the targets HP, the damage is spread out as ability damage across the strength, dexterity and constitution scores (The player receiving the damage decides how much of the damage is applied to what attribute. ALL damage must be applied.). Miscellaneous Notes: I got the idea as I was browsing through an old edition of a SF game called Traveller. It was how that game system handled combat. And yes, I realize the following things: 1) This method would probably make for a more lethal game as it would effect the PC’s many more times then it would the baddies. 2) That it would make Higher CR creatures easier to take down and lower ones tougher. 3) That it would make for more book keeping on all concerned (players and DM)