PDA

View Full Version : [D20-ish] Alternate damage system



Kiero
2007-08-27, 05:28 AM
What I want to do is create a hit points/damage system that isn't level-linked.

My aims are sixfold:
1) Non-level escalating, hit points increase when the underlying ability scores change, and at no other time.
2) I want fewer dice-rolls, so no rolls for damage. Instead I want them a fixed property which is only increased by criticals.
3) Armour is damage reduction, not hit avoidance. How we make higher-level characters harder to hit is a separate, but linked concern.
4) I want relatively small numbers of hit points, 20-30-something as an average, certainly no one with 50+ without magical enhancement (which also means small damage numbers).
5) I'm not aiming for something "grittier" or "deadlier" here, just simpler.
6) Hit points are physical resilience only, luck, skill and whatever else are factored in elsewhere.

Now I know True20 fits 1) and 3) but I don't like the damage save mechanic. I prefer hit points, but I want smaller numbers of them being tossed around. And a much smaller gap between ordinary person and experienced adventurer. Inspirations include Feng Shui (where everyone bar a few exceptions has the same number of hit points, regardless) and Unisystem (where an average person has 24 Life Points, and an exceptional peak human 58).

The order I want to do this is to first work out a good way of generating hit point totals, then work out how we'd need to tailor damage to fit.

Hit Points
I've got two alternatives here, depending on whether I use the Feng Shui method, or the Unisystem method.

Under the Feng Shui method, everyone has the same number of hitpoints, but your Toughness (in this case Constitution) "soaks" damage and is the distinction between the durable and not-durable. Armour adds to that soak.

So for argument's sake, let's say everyone has 20 hit points, and their Constitution bonus is their soak. Course problem we immediately hit is that those with negative bonuses would actually add to the damage they suffer.

An alternative to that, how about a fraction of their Constitution score as soak? Half seems far too big, so maybe a third? So everyone, regardless of their score still gets at least one point of soak. Would six points for someone with a Con of 18 end up being too big, though? Depends on the numbers for damage, I guess. Could always have "lethal soak" different to "non-lethal" - so it's halved when the weapons in question aren't fists/falls/feet and such.

Question is how you'd work that in True20, which only has the modifiers. Work back and impute a Constitution score, just for the purposes of soak?

Under the Unisystem method, hit points are still fixed, but vary depending on your Strength and Constitution (and are called the same things!). Here I think the simplest method is to add Strength and Constitution. So an average human has 20 hit points. A peak human has 36. There's a neat ring to that.

Alternatively, a fixed number plus your bonuses (which is actually closer to the Unisystem method). In Unisystem it's 10 + (4x(Strength + Constitution)). That particular equation doesn't work very well when you've got negative "bonuses". Adding a number to the bonses is going to end up with ridiculously high numbers at the other end of the scale.

How about something like: 10 + (2x ([Strength bonus+4] + [Constitution bonus +4]))? So your weakest with a -3 bonus would have 14 (10 + (2x2)) hit points, average would have 26 (10 + (2x8)), peak 42 (10 + (2x16)).

For non-humanoids we might need a separate calculation altogether, welcome ideas on that.

Damage

Main thing here is I don't want any randomness, it's all fixed. I also want relatively small numbers flying around, because of course hit points are small too.

Under the Feng Shui method, it's a fixed number to which you add your Strength. A direct port here would be fixed number to which you add your strength bonus, though again we've got the penalty concern.

My immediate thought is simply to take half of the hit die as the fixed part (so d3 and d4 is 2, d6 is 3, d8 is 4, d10 is 5, d12 is 6, d20 is 10 etc). That plus strength bonus doesn't mean big numbers, but I've still got the negative damage issue at the low end. Using the full hit die number does fix that, though. So a weakling (-3) with a longsword (d8 so 8) does 5 points of damage. A mighty type (+4) does 12. That works, for my money, since they can at least do a single point of damage with a dagger.

The Unisystem method is multiplication again. It's much deadlier than D20 or Feng Shui, because it has metamechanics for cutting your wounds down. Here weapons are multipliers of your strength. Problem again is negative damage from those with penalties.

Maybe taking a leaf from above, we're looking at something like weapons doing x1 (d3 and d4) x2 (d6 and d8) x3 (d10 and d12) or x4 (d20) damage. Against 4+ Strength modifier. So a weakling (-3) has a base of 1 point, a mighty one (+4) base of 8. Not sure if that isn't too big a variance.

In both instances, critical numbers are applied after soak, rather than before.

Not sure how to do spell damage. Should mental attacks use a Wisdom-based soak?

Armour

Right, armour is damage reduction, adding soak (under the Feng Shui method) or acting as the only soak (under the Unisystem one).

Under the Feng Shui method, I guess you're looking at light armour is 1 point, medium armour is 2 and heavy 3. Does there need to be more variation in there? Perhaps going as high as 5 points so we can have very heavy armour like plate in there?

Shields lets say act as both hit avoidance and soak as well (but only to the side with the shield). Perhaps smallest shields 1 on both, medium 2 on both and large/tower a soak of 2 but hit avoidance of 3?

Under the Unisystem method we're probably talking bigger numbers for soak. Light is 2-3, medium 4-6, heavy 8-10?

Shields same, double the soak of the Feng Shui method?

How should armour soak magic damage?

Levels on damage and hit avoidance

I wonder if there should be a level adjustment to damage dealt out, and also to your AC? What I don't want is levels adding either to hit points, or to soak. The only things they do here are make you more likely to hit others, and harder for others to hit you.

Using full level in either case is probably too big. A quarter of your level as bonus?

Thoughts on all/any of the above welcome.

Matthew
2007-08-27, 05:52 AM
Minimum Damage is always 1 in D&D, regardless of Strength Penalties. That would probably work for you. I would be tempted to make Damage Scale like this:

1D4 = 2
1D6 = 4
1D8 = 6
1D10 = 8
1D12 = 10

Armour as purely Reduction assumes even coverage, which I find just as unrealistic an abstraction as Armour as Deflection. I would be wary of that when designing this (I used to be a strong proponent of Armour as Damage Reduction).

Consider making everybody's Hit Points equal to [Constitution + Character Level]. That creates a fair bit of variance on that scale without the ability to go very high. Alternatively, you could make it [Constitution + Base Attack Bonus] if you wanted to differentiate between the Classes.

Armour Class depends heavily on how pervasive Magical Bonuses are. A very simple way to do it is to create multiple types:

Armour = 10 + Armour + Shield
Dodge = 10 + Base Attack Bonus + Dexterity
Block = 10 + Base Attack Bonus + Dexterity/Strength + [Shield Bonus x2]
Parry = 10 + Base Attack Bonus + Dexterity/Strength + Weapon Adjustement

Dodge, Block and Parry can each be applied once per Round, Armour is a permanent Defence value.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Kiero
2007-08-27, 07:01 AM
I've re-ordered your points a little.


Armour as purely Reduction assumes even coverage, which I find just as unrealistic an abstraction as Armour as Deflection. I would be wary of that when designing this (I used to be a strong proponent of Armour as Damage Reduction).

I'm non-negotiable on this, I'm not that fussed about coverage, but I don't want armour making you harder to hit. Soaking damage is more than enough, and simpler, IMO.


Minimum Damage is always 1 in D&D, regardless of Strength Penalties. That would probably work for you. I would be tempted to make Damage Scale like this:

1D4 = 2
1D6 = 4
1D8 = 6
1D10 = 8
1D12 = 10


Consider making everybody's Hit Points equal to [Constitution + Character Level]. That creates a fair bit of variance on that scale without the ability to go very high. Alternatively, you could make it [Constitution + Base Attack Bonus] if you wanted to differentiate between the Classes.

I like this, small numbers and no "double counting" advantage of Strength. Kind of BRP-like. Very simple as well.

I'm undecided whether adding level or BAB is better; after all fighting types are more durable so there's a consistency about that. Plus no rock-hard mages, just because they're high level. How game-breaking is fragile casters?

You're good with the maths, how do these two scale together (with damage bonuses from Strength as well)? I'm thinking it's necessary to balance out Strength bonuses to damage.

Let's say a 5th level fighter with 14 Constitution (19hps) against a 1st level commoner with 10 (11hps). Fighter has armour and a higher BAB (and also harder to hit due to levels). So would the fact that he only has 8hps more be less significant?

Is armour turned into a must? How would allowing (positive) Con bonuses as DR complicate matters?

Also, magical damage/healing. Multiplying base by level is far too big. Add caster levels?


Armour Class depends heavily on how pervasive Magical Bonuses are. A very simple way to do it is to create multiple types:

Armour = 10 + Armour + Shield
Dodge = 10 + Base Attack Bonus + Dexterity
Block = 10 + Base Attack Bonus + Dexterity/Strength + [Shield Bonus x2]
Parry = 10 + Base Attack Bonus + Dexterity/Strength + Weapon Adjustement

Dodge, Block and Parry can each be applied once per Round, Armour is a permanent Defence value.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

My only change would be that there is no "Armour" type aside from shields and magical armour. I haven't got a problem with magical armour adding to AC as well as DR (where non-magical armour doesn't add to AC). Is that going to be massively unbalancing?

Matthew
2007-08-27, 08:34 AM
I've re-ordered your points a little.

I'm non-negotiable on this, I'm not that fussed about coverage, but I don't want armour making you harder to hit. Soaking damage is more than enough, and simpler, IMO.

Fair enough.


I like this, small numbers and no "double counting" advantage of Strength. Kind of BRP-like. Very simple as well.

Yep, I agree, multiplication is where it all starts to get out of hand in D&D.


I'm undecided whether adding level or BAB is better; after all fighting types are more durable so there's a consistency about that. Plus no rock-hard mages, just because they're high level. How game-breaking is fragile casters?

Spell Casters probably won't be too fragile. Power Gamers will seek to get as high a Constitution as possible, so using Base Attack Bonus will just keep a degree of differential in the range of 1-10 Hit Points.


You're good with the maths, how do these two scale together (with damage bonuses from Strength as well)? I'm thinking it's necessary to balance out Strength bonuses to damage.

Let's say a 5th level fighter with 14 Constitution (19hps) against a 1st level commoner with 10 (11hps). Fighter has armour and a higher BAB (and also harder to hit due to levels). So would the fact that he only has 8hps more be less significant?

Well, let's take a look at the Maths. Assuming the Fighter is of a reasonable power scale, we're looking at 14-15 for most physical Attributes. We'll stick to Core for now and ignore Feats and Skills, just looking at the basic mechanics (using BAB for everything, rather than Character Level)

Fighter 5 AB 5(7), DR 2, HP 19,
Attributes: Strength 15, Dexterity 14, Constitution 14,
Equipment: Mail Hauberk (DR 2), Heavy Shield (BD +4), Long Sword (DB 6),
Defences: Dodge 17, Parry 17, Block 21,

Commoner 1 AB 0(0), DR 0, HP 10,
Attributes: Strength 10, Dexterity 10, Constitution 10,
Equipment: Staff (DB 4)
Defences: Dodge 10, Parry 10, Block 0,

I think it's fairly clear who the winner is going to be here and I think it compares well to how it would transpire in the regular game. My only concern is that the Fighter 5 doesn't kill his opponent with one blow (though I have a thought on how to rectify that). Now, if there were two Commoners the situation is a bit different, as the Fighter has to begin to rely on his Parry and Dodge Defences.


Is armour turned into a must? How would allowing (positive) Con bonuses as DR complicate matters?

As you can see, Armour is a benefit, but not a necessity. Larger values of DR are possible, but if you do so, you have to remember that it will be increasingly difficult for Low Level types to do any Damage at all.


Also, magical damage/healing. Multiplying base by level is far too big. Add caster levels?

Well, Hit Point Range is something like 10-50, with HP increasing on average by only 1 or 2 per level. Easiest thing to do is to tie Healing directly Spell Level, something like 4 HP per Spell Level.


My only change would be that there is no "Armour" type aside from shields and magical armour. I haven't got a problem with magical armour adding to AC as well as DR (where non-magical armour doesn't add to AC). Is that going to be massively unbalancing?

Hmmn. If you're going to ignore Armour and Shields as a potential source of Base Defence, I would do the same for Magical Enhancements. Add Shield Enhancements to Block Defence and Armour Enhancements to Damage Resistance; that should be more than enough.
One other possibilty is to make Dodge [Dexterity Score + Base Attack Bonus] and use that as a Base Defence. It could eventually get a *lot* higher than Parry and Block, though. Just a thought.

Critical Hits

These are a source of headaches for balancing any game. Critical Hits are unbalancing and time consuming. Just make it Natural 20 = Success or 19-20 for Scimitars and such. Ideally, just remove variable Critical Hit Ranges and adjust Base Damage to compensate, they don't do much for the game. I have a few options.

1) Fixed Critical Range of 20 and Damage Bonus (All Weapons have +4 or something like that, weapons with formelry larger critical ranges move up a step in Base Damage, so a Scimitar becomes 1D8 = 6 20/+4 just like a Long Sword and Battle Axe).

2) Fixed Damage Bonus tied to Weapon (Based on Critical Range; only multiply the Base Damage of the Weapon, so a Scimitar would Critical on a 18-20 for 4 Additional Points of Damage, whilst a Long Sword would Critical on a 19-20 for 6 Additional Points of Damage and a Battle Axe would Critical on a 20 for 12 Additional Points of Damage).

3) Damage Bonus tied to Base Attack Bonus (As with 1), but add BAB to Damage instead of a Fixed Bonus)

Iterative Attacks

I advise dumping them, far too much additional and useless Dice Rolling. As an alternative, consider allowing for a Melee form of Rapid Shot.

Saving Throws

I strongly recommend adopting the Saga System for this and making all Saving Throws equal to [Character Level + Attribute]. It makes things a lot easier in the long run.

Power Attack

This is another Feat that suffers from the multiplication escalation problem via number of Attacks. My solution would be to change the Feat entirely so that it becomes a Swift Action to Activate and applies only to one Attack. There is an argument for making this simply add on Damage Bonus equal to Base Attack Bonus without penalising the Attack Bonus (as Shock Trooper already makes this a valid strategy, it might be worth cutting out the middle man). You could put a cap on it, as with Combat Expertise, if you felt it was too powerful.
I think many Feats could benefit from becoming Maneouvres, but that's probably too radical a change for what you are looking at doing.

Monsters

The only way to really test all of this is to start thinking about Monsters and comparing them relative to Adventurers. A lot depends on what specific adjustments you end up making to the Rules. I would be willing to help out a bit once you decide exactly how you want to handle the basics. I recommend starting simple with the Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric and adding the other Classes as you start to see how things are going.

Kiero
2007-08-27, 05:11 PM
Thanks for that, Matthew, some useful insights on how this could work. I think it was your initial idea of Con+BAB for hit points that started me down a particular road. That road being that I should actually be considering a broader reworking than just the hp/damage mechanics. I'm going to steal more ideas from True20/Saga Edition and elsewhere.

Either way it's definitely workable.

Other areas for change:
-use True20's reduced Skill list
-use Saga/Blue Rose's Trained/Untrained/Favoured stuff for skills, in place of Ranks.
-use True20's three roles instead of the hordes of classes
-either Saga or True20's simpler saves sounds good
-shorter list of around 20 simpler Feats
-complete reworking of combat system to be more like Feng Shui's (so a shot counter to replace initiative and all those things, now just two kinds of action, standard (3 shots) and fast (1 shot), along with the exceptions that are longer). That also sorts out iterative attacks - which go.

Monsters is the big question area, though, you're right about that. Especially non-humanoid ones.

Lots to think about...

Matthew
2007-08-31, 06:42 AM
No problem. It sounds interesting. Let me know what you eventually come up with.