1/2 Hit Points? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

1/2 Hit Points?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
xarael
Sep 07, 2011 16:58:10 I am attempting to run a much grittier style of fantasy than D&D is good for out of the box. One big change that I want to effect is to make combats short, bloody and dangerous. To that end I am considering halving all hit point totals in the game. While this obviously would speed up combat it seems like it may have other unintended consequences; for example it seems like it makes encounter powers better, and high DPS characters perhaps too powerful compared to debuff/control characters.

What do you think? Could this work?
#2
pluisjen
Sep 07, 2011 17:10:35 The changes will probably favor Strikers (for whom one-shotting enemies should basically happen a lot) and ranged characters (since shorter combat means that one round where you couldn't attack has a bigger impact)

It'll also make surprise rounds more dangerous since that one round is probably enough to kill at least one PC outright.

It'll also make Leaders really weak, since their healing is also cut in half. Controllers aren't neccesarily worse, as all their effects effectively last twice as long now (immobilised for one round hurts a lot more when it means you can't land that one blow you had that could bloody an enemy)

Defenders might also have it rough and you should expect them to die a lot; they take the brunt of attacks even though they won't have the HP to take the punishment and a lucky crit can easily drop someone to neg Bloodied and kill them outright; which hurts Defenders most as they're most often attacked.

Also I wouldn't be surprised if any crit by a Solo kills whatever target is hit outright, regardless of their role. Even a regular hit could; a White Dragon that manages to catch an entire party in its breath will basically knock out everyone it hits (with it's 20 damage average), potentially instakill the Wizard on a good roll, and bloody everyone else.

It's bite will probably also drop most characters on an average damage roll. Then again, if the players get a surprise round against it, odds are good the Dragon goes down before it ever gets to act (unless they're dumb enough to close in and bunch up and he insta-wipes them with Bloodied Breath)

If your intention is to have characters die left and right then I think it's doable, although you might want to playtest it a bit and maybe give Defenders a few free HP extra and bump Leader heals by a bunch. But you should probably warn your players not to get too attached to their characters...
#3
alitain
Sep 07, 2011 18:29:53 I'm with Pluisjen. To me all this means is that your players will be dying left and right with half HP. Crits will most likely kill or nearly kill a player in one go from strong enemies, so on and so forth.

To me there should be a better way to make a "grittier" game then this. Not to mention, you can make things grittier by setting the mood of the game. Maybe have magic items and such sparse. This'll mean they might not have as big an atk/def bonus and make things "grittier" because they'll have a harder time hitting and all.

But yeah, playtest first and see how the players feel about it. Personally speaking to me it makes me think I'd end up rolling a new character almost every game because of the likelihood of getting killed easily. I mean right now a sorcerer I'm playing has like...92 HP roughly. So half would be 46, and I've taken hits from enemies that range 12-20 damage. So two to three hits I'd be screwed if an enemy got close enough.
#4
xarael
Sep 08, 2011 17:08:33 I definitely agree that a large party of making the game feel gritty is about tone and GMing style, and this is by no means the only rules tweak I'm looking at. The main reason I was thinking about decreasing the number of hit points is to make the combats simply faster. Perhaps I just haven't seen a well optimized Striker at work (more of a Leader guy myself) but combats seem pretty slow to me overall.

Not like I did an amazing amount of math, but consider a party of 4x 3rd level adventurers fighting 1 3rd level Solo White Dragon.
They are going to hit roughly 60% of the time.
2 Characters use their Dailies which average 20 damage a piece.
Everyone has 2x Encounter powers that do an average of 16 damage.
Then everyone is down to At-Wills which do do an average of 8.
Assuming they hit hard and fast, at the end of 3 rounds they have done an average of 110 HP in damage.

Then they have to fight for 4.5 more rounds on average to down the thing... slowly whittling away at it with At-Wills.

Come to think of it maybe 3/4 HP is the right way to go, it would make it about 5 rounds for a big fight.

#5
Neutronium_Dragon
Sep 09, 2011 3:25:34 > 4x 3rd level adventurers fighting 1 3rd level Solo White Dragon.

Given that the design assumption is a 5-character party, a 4-character party WILL take longer than normal to get through a solo encounter (although it won't be overwhelmingly difficult unless someone gets disabled).

I can't easily evaluate your damage numbers, some of your other assumptions may also be off: they may have more encounter powers (via race, theme, etc), they'll probably drop APs, they may hit more often than that (since it's a brute and has lower defenses than normal), and the fact that it's four-vs-one tilts the tactical situation in their favor (flanking, action denial/status effects, etc).

Regardless, the 4-character party is the main issue - you're probably better off sticking to solos a level below theirs or using elites + support (and the latter is usually a better approach in general) rather than a same-level solo.

If you're dealing with published adventures then you'll need to adjust things accordingly, since they also assume a 5-character party. Knocking 20% off the XP budget by removing or downgrading creatures is the by-the-book method, although a more aggressive paring back is in order for encounters above the party's level (25% to 33%).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 xarael Sep 07, 2011 16:58:10	I am attempting to run a much grittier style of fantasy than D&D is good for out of the box. One big change that I want to effect is to make combats short, bloody and dangerous. To that end I am considering halving all hit point totals in the game. While this obviously would speed up combat it seems like it may have other unintended consequences; for example it seems like it makes encounter powers better, and high DPS characters perhaps too powerful compared to debuff/control characters. What do you think? Could this work?
#2 pluisjen Sep 07, 2011 17:10:35	The changes will probably favor Strikers (for whom one-shotting enemies should basically happen a lot) and ranged characters (since shorter combat means that one round where you couldn't attack has a bigger impact) It'll also make surprise rounds more dangerous since that one round is probably enough to kill at least one PC outright. It'll also make Leaders really weak, since their healing is also cut in half. Controllers aren't neccesarily worse, as all their effects effectively last twice as long now (immobilised for one round hurts a lot more when it means you can't land that one blow you had that could bloody an enemy) Defenders might also have it rough and you should expect them to die a lot; they take the brunt of attacks even though they won't have the HP to take the punishment and a lucky crit can easily drop someone to neg Bloodied and kill them outright; which hurts Defenders most as they're most often attacked. Also I wouldn't be surprised if any crit by a Solo kills whatever target is hit outright, regardless of their role. Even a regular hit could; a White Dragon that manages to catch an entire party in its breath will basically knock out everyone it hits (with it's 20 damage average), potentially instakill the Wizard on a good roll, and bloody everyone else. It's bite will probably also drop most characters on an average damage roll. Then again, if the players get a surprise round against it, odds are good the Dragon goes down before it ever gets to act (unless they're dumb enough to close in and bunch up and he insta-wipes them with Bloodied Breath) If your intention is to have characters die left and right then I think it's doable, although you might want to playtest it a bit and maybe give Defenders a few free HP extra and bump Leader heals by a bunch. But you should probably warn your players not to get too attached to their characters...
#3 alitain Sep 07, 2011 18:29:53	I'm with Pluisjen. To me all this means is that your players will be dying left and right with half HP. Crits will most likely kill or nearly kill a player in one go from strong enemies, so on and so forth. To me there should be a better way to make a "grittier" game then this. Not to mention, you can make things grittier by setting the mood of the game. Maybe have magic items and such sparse. This'll mean they might not have as big an atk/def bonus and make things "grittier" because they'll have a harder time hitting and all. But yeah, playtest first and see how the players feel about it. Personally speaking to me it makes me think I'd end up rolling a new character almost every game because of the likelihood of getting killed easily. I mean right now a sorcerer I'm playing has like...92 HP roughly. So half would be 46, and I've taken hits from enemies that range 12-20 damage. So two to three hits I'd be screwed if an enemy got close enough.
#4 xarael Sep 08, 2011 17:08:33	I definitely agree that a large party of making the game feel gritty is about tone and GMing style, and this is by no means the only rules tweak I'm looking at. The main reason I was thinking about decreasing the number of hit points is to make the combats simply faster. Perhaps I just haven't seen a well optimized Striker at work (more of a Leader guy myself) but combats seem pretty slow to me overall. Not like I did an amazing amount of math, but consider a party of 4x 3rd level adventurers fighting 1 3rd level Solo White Dragon. They are going to hit roughly 60% of the time. 2 Characters use their Dailies which average 20 damage a piece. Everyone has 2x Encounter powers that do an average of 16 damage. Then everyone is down to At-Wills which do do an average of 8. Assuming they hit hard and fast, at the end of 3 rounds they have done an average of 110 HP in damage. Then they have to fight for 4.5 more rounds on average to down the thing... slowly whittling away at it with At-Wills. Come to think of it maybe 3/4 HP is the right way to go, it would make it about 5 rounds for a big fight.
#5 Neutronium_Dragon Sep 09, 2011 3:25:34	> 4x 3rd level adventurers fighting 1 3rd level Solo White Dragon. Given that the design assumption is a 5-character party, a 4-character party WILL take longer than normal to get through a solo encounter (although it won't be overwhelmingly difficult unless someone gets disabled). I can't easily evaluate your damage numbers, some of your other assumptions may also be off: they may have more encounter powers (via race, theme, etc), they'll probably drop APs, they may hit more often than that (since it's a brute and has lower defenses than normal), and the fact that it's four-vs-one tilts the tactical situation in their favor (flanking, action denial/status effects, etc). Regardless, the 4-character party is the main issue - you're probably better off sticking to solos a level below theirs or using elites + support (and the latter is usually a better approach in general) rather than a same-level solo. If you're dealing with published adventures then you'll need to adjust things accordingly, since they also assume a 5-character party. Knocking 20% off the XP budget by removing or downgrading creatures is the by-the-book method, although a more aggressive paring back is in order for encounters above the party's level (25% to 33%).