Alternative HP systems and other altered d20 mechanics

[Sonofapreacherman]

Upper_Krust.

Okay, I've read the whole thread now (all 5 pages) and I really think that your ideas have merit. I commend your stalwart devotion to pursuing a *universally scalable* rule system that uses logic as the initial foundation and then "stylizes" those rules for simplicity. I love the "universal" aspects of third edition Dungeons and Dragons, and I can't stand it when that system breaks down to accommodate nostalgia. Either commit or don't. Third edition has already committed so much at this point that it would be foolhardy not to embrace "universality" wholeheartedly. Damn the sacred cows. Full speed ahead!

-----

Okay. Armor as damage reduction instead of armor rating. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying... convert the AR ratings into DR ratings for *slashing* weapons. Multiply those AR ratings by 2 for *blunt* weapons, and divide those AR ratings by 2 for *piercing* weapons.

The first foreseeable problem I see with this system is that everybody, with even a "little" power gamer inside of them, will resort to using piercing weapons from now on.

That's not a feasible solution to my way of thinking.

-----

Your second idea also has merit. Making hit points more static, and (presumably) incorporating dodge and parry rules.

Basing those hit points on weight is fine, but I know for a fact that everybody has an *image* of their character that may not fall in line with their randomly rolled weight. As much as weight makes sense to my brain, there must by another way to minimize the impact of weight on hit points so that characters can "appear" however they want.

-----

That said, I use to play a game called Villains and Vigilantes *ages* ago that not only used weight to determine hit points, but also (in decreasing importance) Endurance, Strength, Agility, and Intelligence. In that game, Carrying Capacity was a function of personal weight, Strength and Endurance. And your total Carrying Capacity determined how much additional damage you inflicted (as a rollable dice) during melee combat. As well, Agility determined your bonus to hit for *everything*, and both Agility and Intelligence gave you a small bonus to damage.

There were other aspect of Villains and Vigilantes that would not be appropriate for Dungeons and Dragons (being a super-hero genre) but the core mechanic incorporated many of the logical themes I think you would like to see implemented in the *background* of Dungeons and Dragons rules.

In fact, it makes me now wonder if you have been using Villains and Vigilantes as a model since the very beginning of your posted ideas...

Am I wrong? The similarities are striking.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

Lily and UK--

I've been popping in from time to time to see where this is going.

I won't presume to either know what each of you is thinking, or to place words in your mouths, but I think there is a misunderstanding due to a confusion of terms.

Would it help to state that UK is looking for a more logical system--rather than a more realistic one?

Just trying to (hopefully) be helpful

 

[Upper_Krust]

Upper_Krust.

Hello there!

Okay, I've read the whole thread now (all 5 pages) and I really think that your ideas have merit.

Thanks, just thinking out loud really...

I commend your stalwart devotion to pursuing a *universally scalable* rule system that uses logic as the initial foundation and then "stylizes" those rules for simplicity.

Absolutely, I am surprised no one has ever really tackled it like that - it would sort out so many problems. I mean how many rules queries does 'The Sage' get every week and how many could be avoided with a logical system...

I love the "universal" aspects of third edition Dungeons and Dragons, and I can't stand it when that system breaks down to accommodate nostalgia. Either commit or don't. Third edition has already committed so much at this point that it would be foolhardy not to embrace "universality" wholeheartedly.

I agree. However, I see why 3rd Ed. drew the line (with regards changes) at a certain point. Too many sudden changes may have alienated the nostalgic masses. Though I think any future editions could go that little bit further and make the necessary changes.

Damn the sacred cows. Full speed ahead!

Okay. Armor as damage reduction instead of armor rating. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying... convert the AR ratings into DR ratings for *slashing* weapons. Multiply those AR ratings by 2 for *blunt* weapons, and divide those AR ratings by 2 for *piercing* weapons.

The first foreseeable problem I see with this system is that everybody, with even a "little" power gamer inside of them, will resort to using piercing weapons from now on.

That's not a feasible solution to my way of thinking.

I think the main problem to changing the current armor rules is balance; technically you are probably going to have to change weapons somewhat as well (so it may not be a worthwhile endeavour within the current system?).

Obviously crushing and subsequently slashing weapons have their individual advantages (otherwise they would have never 'evolved').

Piercing weapons should naturally penetrate armour better and deliver more damage (multiplier) on a critical hit. However, they should likely do less damage; be less accurate (likely to hit) and (as a result) score fewer critical hits (lower crit range).

Club 1d6 x2
Hand Axe 1d6 x3
Shortsword 1d6 19/20 x2

You could suggest something like:

Club 1d12 17/20 x2
Hand Axe 1d8 19/20 x3 (1/2 AV)
Shortsword 1d6 20 x4 (1/4 AV)

Your second idea also has merit. Making hit points more static, and (presumably) incorporating dodge and parry rules.

Yes. Dodge and parry would become much more pronounced.

I have been considering Base 20 (or maybe even 30, see below) to hit; then add BAB/Skill (parry) and Dex (dodge)...?

Basing those hit points on weight is fine, but I know for a fact that everybody has an *image* of their character that may not fall in line with their randomly rolled weight. As much as weight makes sense to my brain, there must by another way to minimize the impact of weight on hit points so that characters can "appear" however they want.

Actually I think I have a way to allow people to chose their weight/hp...?

Firstly we base (initial) Strength on hit points (Str = 2/3 hp, round down)

eg.
180lb man (18hp) starts with Str 12
40lb halfling (4hp) starts with Str 3
1200lb hill giant (120hp) starts with Str 80

Secondly we treat (initial) Dexterity as a negative (representative of the speed of hand-eye (etc.) co-ordination).

eg.
180lb man (18hp) starts with Dex -12
40lb halfling (4hp) starts with Dex -3
1200lb hill giant (120hp) starts with Dex -80

So characters can chose to play the 300lb Conan type with Str 20; but their initial Dex will suffer as a result.

Another point is the size modifiers for attacks. They should be representative of the increased/decreased area to hit. I suggest:

+1 Size Category +4/-4
+2 SC +16/-16
+3 SC +64/-64
+4 SC +256/-256

The reason this still works is that a '20' is still a hit regardless of modifiers.

So the Hill Giant would likely only hit the halfling on a natural '20' but is assured a one hit kill if they do. That in itself could make such dice rolls more exciting!

That said, I use to play a game called Villains and Vigilantes *ages* ago that not only used weight to determine hit points, but also (in decreasing importance) Endurance, Strength, Agility, and Intelligence.

By adding so many factors you are inexorably moving away from simplicity.

In that game, Carrying Capacity was a function of personal weight, Strength and Endurance. And your total Carrying Capacity determined how much additional damage you inflicted (as a rollable dice) during melee combat. As well, Agility determined your bonus to hit for *everything*, and both Agility and Intelligence gave you a small bonus to damage.

I would agree that Dex/Agility should give you a bonus to hit.

There were other aspect of Villains and Vigilantes that would not be appropriate for Dungeons and Dragons (being a super-hero genre) but the core mechanic incorporated many of the logical themes I think you would like to see implemented in the *background* of Dungeons and Dragons rules.

Sounds like an interesting system.

In fact, it makes me now wonder if you have been using Villains and Vigilantes as a model since the very beginning of your posted ideas...

Am I wrong? The similarities are striking.

Actually I have never heard of that system before you mentioned it, so any similarities are incidental - though no doubt due to logical thought process.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi there!

Lily and UK--

I've been popping in from time to time to see where this is going.

I won't presume to either know what each of you is thinking, or to place words in your mouths, but I think there is a misunderstanding due to a confusion of terms.

Would it help to state that UK is looking for a more logical system--rather than a more realistic one?

Just trying to (hopefully) be helpful

I suppose logic is less of a dirty word in this respect.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Originally posted by Upper_Krust:
...I see why 3rd Ed. drew the line (with regards changes) at a certain point. Too many sudden changes may have alienated the nostalgic masses. Though I think any future editions could go that little bit further and make the necessary changes.

Yes. Third edition as a necessary transition to a more logical system.

Originally posted by Upper_Krust:
Actually I think I have a way to allow people to choose their weight/hp...?

Firstly we base (initial) Strength on hit points (Str = 2/3 hp, round down)

eg.
180lb man (18hp) starts with Str 12
40lb halfling (4hp) starts with Str 3
1200lb hill giant (120hp) starts with Str 80

Secondly we treat (initial) Dexterity as a negative (representative of the speed of hand-eye (etc.) co-ordination).

eg.
180lb man (18hp) starts with Dex -12
40lb halfling (4hp) starts with Dex -3
1200lb hill giant (120hp) starts with Dex -80

The immediate snag I foresee with this system (regardless of the equation) is that Dungeons and Dragons will become permeated with cloned characters who all have the same "golden mean" weight for their race. The perfect balance of Strength and Dexterity.

To be honest, I still want to roll my attributes (that's a part of the fun for me) but I want those attributes to be accountable within a logical game mechanic. Right away this means diminishing the importance of Weight in the Hit Point equation, but not eliminating it altogether (to allow for more disparity between characters).

-----

For example:

Weight / 25 (rounded up) gives you a multiplier.

Let's say I weigh 180 pounds. 180 / 25 (rounded up) = 8. This will be my base Weight multiplier.

Let's say I'm playing a ranger with 16 Constitution. That's a +3 multiplier.

8 x 3 = 24.

24 would be my base Hit Point total.

Let's also say that my ranger is quite strong, having an 18 Strength. That's a +4 modifier to my Hit Point total.

24 + 4 = 28.

Finally my character chooses the Toughness feat, adding 3 more Hit Point to my total.

28 + 3 = 31.

You get the idea. With such a system, you could even say that all characters with fighter base attack bonuses (+1 to +20) add +3 to their Hit Point total every level...

All characters with cleric/rogue base attack bonuses (+1 to +15) add +2 to their Hit Point total every level...

And all characters with wizard base attack bonuses (+1 to +10) add +1 to their Hit Point total every level...

That way additional levels and experience can still make your character more "hardy" in the physical sense.

Yes, there is a moderate amount of calculation involved, but the imposition is minor when you consider how often such a calculation will be made. In the end it will seem like nothing.

Keep in mind as well, this system is only meant for a system that used armor damage reduction, dodge, and parry rules. Speaking of which, this can be resolved really easily.

-----

To parry, you have to roll a value equal to or greater than your opponent's attack roll to successfully parry. Your character can parry the same number of times per round that they can attack. That means two weapon fighting characters can parry at least twice per round. You can also forsake an attack roll to make an additional parry roll, or forsake a parry roll to make an additional attack roll.

To dodge (a full round action), your have to roll a value equal to or greater than your opponent's attack roll to successfully dodge. Essentially, dodging works the same as parrying, but is the recourse of characters who are either unarmed or do not have the feat Improved Unarmed Combat to parry armed characters.

-----

And now for Carrying Capacity. This is how I would change it.

Your weight x 1/10 of your Strength.

Let's use my ranger example again, who weighs 180 pounds and has a Strength of 18.

180 x 1.8 = 324.

For the various loads that characters can carry, divide this amount by 3 and round down for light, medium, and heavy increments.

That would be... up to 108 for a light load, 109-216 for a medium load, and 217-324 for a heavy load.

Again, not a calculation you will have to make all the time, so hardly an imposition.

Now to go a step further...

We can now base additional melee damage on Carrying Capacity using an exponential system. Your character would inflict an additional die value of damage for each increment.

The amount to the left is your Carrying Capacity range. The amount to the left (after the semi-colon) is your additional die value to melee damage (and the average amount in parenthesis).

0: -1d12 (-6)
1: -1d10 (-5)
2-3: -1d8 (-4)
4-6: -1d6 (-3)
7-10 -1d4 (-2)
11-30: -1d2 (-1)
31-60: 0
41-100: +1d2 (+1)
101-200: +1d4 (+2)
201-300: +1d6 (+3)
301-400: +1d8 (+4)
401-500: +1d10 (+5)
501-600: +1d12 (+6)
601-800: +2d8 (+9)
801-1000: +2d10 (+11)
1001-1200: +2d12 (+13)
1201-1600: +4d8 (+18)
1601-2000: +4d10 (+22)
2001-2400: +4d12 (+27)
2401-3200: +8d8 (+36)
3201-4000: +8d10 (+44)
4001-4800: +8d12 (+52)
4801-6400: +16d8 (+72)
6401-8000: +16d10 (+88)
8001-9600: +16d12 (+104)
9601-12800: +32d8 (+144)
12800-16000: +32d10 (+176)
16001-19200: +32d12 (+208)...

You get the idea. Suffice it say, it scales ad infinitum.

 

[Lily Inverse]

Lily and UK--

I've been popping in from time to time to see where this is going.

I won't presume to either know what each of you is thinking, or to place words in your mouths, but I think there is a misunderstanding due to a confusion of terms.

Would it help to state that UK is looking for a more logical system--rather than a more realistic one?

Just trying to (hopefully) be helpful

This is more or less what I've been trying to get UK to admit.

The system types I've seen detailed are as follows

Logical: Has a basis in fact that follows through to reasonable conclusions.

Realistic: Details are planned out meticulously so that at the end of every hit the DM has little work to do in determining exactly how the hit was landed, what it looks like, how it feels, which vital organs were removed, and all the other gory details of combat.

Not only do realistic systems tend to be much harder to use, at a certain point they become utterly tasteless exercises in carnage. Moreover, the two words are NOT interchangable, as I've seen homebrews with high realism levels that have no logic to them whatsoever. The system involved two random dice rolls, one percentile and one based on the weapons, for every successful hit. The second die conformed to a chart based on the first, which was a location determining roll.

The problem: Being stuck with a dagger simply could not be fatal on the first blow. On the other hand, a greatsword would produce a full minute's worth of bloody details from this man's mouth.

I was glad it was only a one-shot game at a convention, let me tell you that.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again mate!

The immediate snag I foresee with this system (regardless of the equation) is that Dungeons and Dragons will become permeated with cloned characters who all have the same "golden mean" weight for their race. The perfect balance of Strength and Dexterity.

It shouldn't be too difficult to incorporate a random factor.

To be honest, I still want to roll my attributes (that's a part of the fun for me) but I want those attributes to be accountable within a logical game mechanic. Right away this means diminishing the importance of Weight in the Hit Point equation, but not eliminating it altogether (to allow for more disparity between characters).

I still think that mass is the simplest factor to use.

It would be easy to rig a random weight table for characters by race.

For example:

Weight / 25 (rounded up) gives you a multiplier.

Let's say I weigh 180 pounds. 180 / 25 (rounded up) = 8. This will be my base Weight multiplier.

Let's say I'm playing a ranger with 16 Constitution. That's a +3 multiplier.

8 x 3 = 24.

24 would be my base Hit Point total.

That may work, although I don't personally advocate Constitution affecting hit points (under the mass/hp method).

Let's also say that my ranger is quite strong, having an 18 Strength. That's a +4 modifier to my Hit Point total.

24 + 4 = 28.

I agree Str (bonus) should be added to hp.

Finally my character chooses the Toughness feat, adding 3 more Hit Point to my total.

28 + 3 = 31.

I'm not sure about this. A halfling would gain much more benefit than a Hill Giant.

You get the idea. With such a system, you could even say that all characters with fighter base attack bonuses (+1 to +20) add +3 to their Hit Point total every level...

All characters with cleric/rogue base attack bonuses (+1 to +15) add +2 to their Hit Point total every level...

And all characters with wizard base attack bonuses (+1 to +10) add +1 to their Hit Point total every level...

That way additional levels and experience can still make your character more "hardy" in the physical sense.

Instead of this I was considering that characters would gain +1 ability score per 'level'.

So they could improve Str more often, in effect, toughening them up.

Yes, there is a moderate amount of calculation involved, but the imposition is minor when you consider how often such a calculation will be made. In the end it will seem like nothing.

Perhaps as an option but I see no reason to unduly complicate things.

I think (for my system) that constitution needs to be addressed.

To parry, you have to roll a value equal to or greater than your opponent's attack roll to successfully parry. Your character can parry the same number of times per round that they can attack. That means two weapon fighting characters can parry at least twice per round. You can also forsake an attack roll to make an additional parry roll, or forsake a parry roll to make an additional attack roll.

I don't like this method. You run into problems of balance with multiple attacks.

To dodge (a full round action), your have to roll a value equal to or greater than your opponent's attack roll to successfully dodge. Essentially, dodging works the same as parrying, but is the recourse of characters who are either unarmed or do not have the feat Improved Unarmed Combat to parry armed characters.

Again I would simply let Armour Class handle this.

And now for Carrying Capacity. This is how I would change it.

Your weight x 1/10 of your Strength.

Let's use my ranger example again, who weighs 180 pounds and has a Strength of 18.

180 x 1.8 = 324.

For the various loads that characters can carry, divide this amount by 3 and round down for light, medium, and heavy increments.

That would be... up to 108 for a light load, 109-216 for a medium load, and 217-324 for a heavy load.

Again, not a calculation you will have to make all the time, so hardly an imposition.

Now to go a step further...

We can now base additional melee damage on Carrying Capacity using an exponential system. Your character would inflict an additional die value of damage for each increment.

The amount to the left is your Carrying Capacity range. The amount to the left (after the semi-colon) is your additional die value to melee damage (and the average amount in parenthesis).

0: -1d12 (-6)
1: -1d10 (-5)
2-3: -1d8 (-4)
4-6: -1d6 (-3)
7-10 -1d4 (-2)
11-30: -1d2 (-1)
31-60: 0
41-100: +1d2 (+1)
101-200: +1d4 (+2)
201-300: +1d6 (+3)
301-400: +1d8 (+4)
401-500: +1d10 (+5)
501-600: +1d12 (+6)
601-800: +2d8 (+9)
801-1000: +2d10 (+11)
1001-1200: +2d12 (+13)
1201-1600: +4d8 (+18)
1601-2000: +4d10 (+22)
2001-2400: +4d12 (+27)
2401-3200: +8d8 (+36)
3201-4000: +8d10 (+44)
4001-4800: +8d12 (+52)
4801-6400: +16d8 (+72)
6401-8000: +16d10 (+88)
8001-9600: +16d12 (+104)
9601-12800: +32d8 (+144)
12800-16000: +32d10 (+176)
16001-19200: +32d12 (+208)...

You get the idea. Suffice it say, it scales ad infinitum.

I would have just used Strength x10lb = Heavy Load.

I am still not convinced that Strength Bonus to damage should be represented as a die value. I think a bonus is much simpler. This is partially why I would advocate perhaps slightly higher base dice damage for weapons, so that bonuses are less obtrusive. But I think that is inevitable anyway.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Lily mate!

This is more or less what I've been trying to get UK to admit.

The system types I've seen detailed are as follows

Logical: Has a basis in fact that follows through to reasonable conclusions.

Realistic: Details are planned out meticulously so that at the end of every hit the DM has little work to do in determining exactly how the hit was landed, what it looks like, how it feels, which vital organs were removed, and all the other gory details of combat.

Not only do realistic systems tend to be much harder to use, at a certain point they become utterly tasteless exercises in carnage. Moreover, the two words are NOT interchangable, as I've seen homebrews with high realism levels that have no logic to them whatsoever. The system involved two random dice rolls, one percentile and one based on the weapons, for every successful hit. The second die conformed to a chart based on the first, which was a location determining roll.

The problem: Being stuck with a dagger simply could not be fatal on the first blow. On the other hand, a greatsword would produce a full minute's worth of bloody details from this man's mouth.

I was glad it was only a one-shot game at a convention, let me tell you that.

I already replied to you on this point in a previous post Lily. The difference is somantic to me. I advocate simplicity as well as 'logic' so obviously I am against a system that would be overly pedantic in its portrayal of 'realism'.

 

[LostSoul]

To parry, you have to roll a value equal to or greater than your opponent's attack roll to successfully parry.

To dodge (a full round action), your have to roll a value equal to or greater than your opponent's attack roll to successfully dodge.

I've been messing around with Parries and Dodges on my own:

Parry Rule: Parry attacks by rolling d20 + attack modifiers vs. opponent's attack. Only get as many parries as you have attacks. Can Dodge (BAB + Dex + Dodge bonuses) by giving up an attack. (Or should Dodge be a MEA, done as a reaction? Maybe with a +1 BAB requirement, like Quickdraw?)

Ranged Attacks: Cannot be Parried, but can be Dodged.

Shields: Shields give the user a free parry. Bonus to the parry roll based on the size of the shield (-1 buckler, +0 small/med, +1 large). Shields provide cover bonus vs. ranged weapons - +1 AC for buckler/Small, 1/4 cover (+2 AC, +1 Ref) for large.

Attacking: A Medium object with Dex 10 has an AC of 5.

Parry Feats:
Quickness gives you a +1 to AC in regards to one attacker, just like the PHB Dodge.
-(preq) Dodge lets you exchange parries for a dodge. (Dodge is BAB + Dex)
Expertise lets you add to your Parry Roll by subtracting from your Attack Roll.
-(preq) Shield Expertise gives you an extra Parry at -2 with your shield. (Like Rapid Shot but with Parrying.)
-(preq) Melee Expertise gives you an extra Parry at -2 with your melee weapon. (Like Rapid Shot but with Parrying.)

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi LostSoul!

I've been messing around with Parries and Dodges on my own:

Parry Rule: Parry attacks by rolling d20 + attack modifiers vs. opponent's attack. Only get as many parries as you have attacks. Can Dodge (BAB + Dex + Dodge bonuses) by giving up an attack. (Or should Dodge be a MEA, done as a reaction? Maybe with a +1 BAB requirement, like Quickdraw?)

Ranged Attacks: Cannot be Parried, but can be Dodged.

Shields: Shields give the user a free parry. Bonus to the parry roll based on the size of the shield (-1 buckler, +0 small/med, +1 large). Shields provide cover bonus vs. ranged weapons - +1 AC for buckler/Small, 1/4 cover (+2 AC, +1 Ref) for large.

Attacking: A Medium object with Dex 10 has an AC of 5.

Parry Feats:
Quickness gives you a +1 to AC in regards to one attacker, just like the PHB Dodge.
-(preq) Dodge lets you exchange parries for a dodge. (Dodge is BAB + Dex)
Expertise lets you add to your Parry Roll by subtracting from your Attack Roll.
-(preq) Shield Expertise gives you an extra Parry at -2 with your shield. (Like Rapid Shot but with Parrying.)
-(preq) Melee Expertise gives you an extra Parry at -2 with your melee weapon. (Like Rapid Shot but with Parrying.)

What would happen if a Human parried a Hill Giant?

I have a few ideas myself, but I am curious what about your thoughts. Personally I am not convinced parrying should ever be more than an optional rule...?