One Hit Die challenge

[Promethean]

A friend of mine and I were having a discussion about IRL medieval warfare and fantasy tropes, and long story short, we decided to see if we +more friends could play a game of D&D around that. Me as the DM, am putting together a homebrew rule-set to best simulate this. I'm also considering some things I think are possible neat ideas, but not entirely necessary. Would like feedback and suggestions on what I have so far + any suggestions on what to add


One Hit die: This is the big one and actually the reason we're doing this in the first place(so it's non-negotiable). All characters(and any humanoid NPC) will have the hit dice they start with at level 1, and levels won't increase it. Levels also don't give you bonus feats or stat points, but give skill points, increase saves, and class features(fighters still get a bonus feat every other level for example) as before.(neat idea category) I'm thinking of allowing the players spent skill points to gain feats and upgrade base stats, as well as allowing them to use any mental stat(cha, int, or wis) as their skill point bonus(but they have to use the same one every level).
Armor Improved: Upon realizing that having 1HD basically makes any martial class effectively useless to it's intended function, I decided to add some more functionality to armor. The mostly unused Item Hardness stat is now an effective DR based on a number of factors:
Light/Medium/Heavy: Light armor now gives DR/blunt or piercing or magic unenchanted, DR/blunt or piercing enchanted. Medium armor does the same, but also adds It's effective Item HP to the player as a separate health bar that weapons need to chew through before they can damage the player. Heavy armor acts as medium, but it's DR isn't overcome by piercing.
Magic: Armor DR is factored VS Magic and stacks with normal energy resists. So a fighter in +1 steel plate armor(Armor DR 12/blunt) with fire resistance 10 subtracts -22 from any fire damage attacks against him.
Resistance: Armor DR and normal DR stack(and I think I'll start callling armor DR "Hardness"/"HR" to avoid confusion), so a Barbarian with DR 5/- and +1 steel plate(HR 12/blunt) subtracts -5 from blunt attacks, -12 from magic, and -17 from everything else.
Restrictions: Armor no longer has a dex penalty, it has a penalty to Con(which applied to skills, fortitude, forced marches, etc.). This is for keeping with realism, Actual Medieval armor not only didn't restrict movement(the sliding plates or plate armor could bend far more than the person inside them), but it isn't as heavy as what real life soldiers carry into modern battles(and unlike ceramic plates and modern battle gear, plate armor was evenly distributed and only exerted 5 pounds of extra weight on any given area. It just not as effective against bullets as modern stuff). Plate armor however did restrict breathing(metal corset+plate in front of mouth/nose=not fun) and made the wearer susceptible to over-heating(like a really heavy duty sweater).

This may seem a bit overpowered, it makes up for the lost health and is actually rather accurate to how being in IRL medieval armor is compared to being unarmored in a Melee. A knight was rarely killed from battle wounds so much as they were pinned to the ground and had their helmet's removed/throat slashed(the dagger has killed more knights than any other weapon, even anti-armor weapons like pole-arms).
Weapon Stats: I've decided to switch up how Range and Melee weapons assign stat bonuses. Bows now have a Minimum strength requirement(draw difficulty), Are given a bonus to attack and damage based on strength(Hitting something with a bow is far more about keeping your hands from shaking with exhaustion and your technique than it is about dexterity. Better drawback means more force on release as well{IRL it's more complicated, but otherwise bows wouldn't get a damage bonus]). One handed Melee weapons base their attack and damage on Dex(hitting your enemy in a good place matters far more with a one handed weapon than your personal strength[Weapon finesse doubles this bonus now]). Two handed weapons use Dex for Hit bonus and Strength for damage bonus(large weapons and pole arms are all about exerting as much force as possible, but you actually need to hit them)
Class Advancement(neat idea category): I'm thinking about basing certain class features advancement(rogue Sneak attack, barbarian rage, Fighter bonus feats, spell slots, etc/this is not the full list) on character level(since taking that class) rather than class level, the Caveat being you need at least 5 levels in the class and you don't get any new class features for the level if you're not that class. Example: a 20th level character that started with 5 levels of barbarian rages like a level 20 barbarian[+8 str and con 5/day], but doesn't gain "indomitable will" or "tireless rage". If said character started taking barbarian levels at level 5, they'd rage like a level 15 barbarian at level 20
Sub-Classing(neat idea category): I'm thinking about adding in a system I've been playing with the idea of since I read the gestalt rules on the SRD and the Level Retraining rules in PHB2. I was thinking of having the Full spell-casting(and Martial-Maneuver) classes be "Sub-Classes", a Frankenstein-ian fusion of prestige class, gestalt, and level retraining. How I envisioned it to work is by having players pick from less powerful classes with consistent features(fighter, rogue, warlock, binder, etc.)[half casters{ranger, paladin, bard, etc.} are replaced with their prestige version], have them go out discover the class in play, and advance it independently to their normal class(in this system you'd need to "Spend" your XP on level up rather than track a total). Example: Player A is a fighter until level 5, player then takes 5 levels of paladin, and is chosen to become the avatar of his god and gains the cleric sub-class. He is a level 10 character. The only things he tracks on the cleric side of the class are skill points, saves and class features. If cleric gave more skill points than fighter then the player would add the difference every level(not counting intelligence), so if cleric gave 4+int to fighter's 2+int, the player would gain 2 skill points for every level of cleric. The player's saves are whatever is the highest between their current Class level and current Sub-Class level. The player can only have one Sub-Class, but they can add prestige sub-classes as they like.
Non-Spells and other Abilities(neat idea category): I'm thinking of changing #/day Spell-like, Psi-like, Supernatural, and Magic Item abilities to function like maneuvers(but without the ability to refresh in combat like maneuvers), players would be able to use them #/times per combat encounter rather than #/times per day and as much as they like when not in combat. NPC's would have the same abilities as well. #/times per week/month/year/etc abilities are unchanged, and #/rounds between uses are unchanged.

[MeimuHakurei]

Casters won't at all be impeded in their ability to cast spells, so all you're really doing is taking hit points away from the classes that desperately need them. Plus, summons will *easily* outstrip any martial at taking hits for the party since their hit dice are unaffected.

[HouseRules]

I believe all spells do 1 dice of damage, even the death effects becomes 1 dice of some sort of damage.

This pretty much sounds like using rules from Chainmail with a bit of your house rules.


In Chainmail, Players roll 1d6 to determine Spell Level of the Wizard, and All Wizards have 2 Hit Dice
Heroes and Anti-Heroes have 4 Hit Dice
Rangers are Heroes equipped with +1 magic weapons
Super Heroes and Super Anti-Heroes have 8 Hit Dice


Remember that in Chainmail, a figure represents a Sergeant leading 20 soldiers, a Hero represents a Captain leading 80 soldiers, and a Superhero represents a Field Officer (Major, Lieutenant Colonel, or Colonel) leading 160 soldiers in their Company.
Rangers represent 5th level character of sort and leads 100 soldiers.

Edit:
This seem to lean towards Homebrew Design (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?15-Homebrew-Design), but depending on how the discussion goes, it may or may not be moved to the other sub-forum.

[MeimuHakurei]

I believe all spells do 1 dice of damage, even the death effects becomes 1 dice of some sort of damage.

This pretty much sounds like using rules from Chainmail with a bit of your house rules.

Good thing most of the good spells don't really need damage dice to function.

[HouseRules]

When Chainmail becomes the Original Dungeons and Dragons, Instant Death (or Push Back for some Fantastic Creatures) converts to 1 Dice of Damage (literally 1d6 for everything), with a few exception for some spells to keep magic overpowered.

[MeimuHakurei]

When Chainmail becomes the Original Dungeons and Dragons, Instant Death (or Push Back for some Fantastic Creatures) converts to 1 Dice of Damage (literally 1d6 for everything), with a few exception for some spells to keep magic overpowered.

So? That still leaves Teleport, Planar Binding, Polymorph, Scrying, Greater Invisibility, Animate Dead, Wall of Force, Contingency, Celerity, Waves of Exhaustion, Hold Person, Tongues, Fly, Haste, Summon Monster, Gate, Time Stop, Shapechange, Astral Projection etc. completely unaffected.

[HouseRules]

Magic is always overpowered, and old games prefer to keep it away from player's hands, or at least, have many drawbacks that players are not willing to make. Those drawbacks have evolved into nothingness as the edition moves forward. 3rd Edition is known to remove many drawbacks, 4th edition and 5th edition does not bring those drawbacks back into the game at all.

The goal of a medieval style war-game is that the character represents a piece in the war-game. However, how important of a piece are they? Are they important enough that other soldiers would jump in the way and die for them like the Heroes of Chainmail that requires 4 simultaneous kills to kill them, or Super Heroes that require 8 simultaneous kills to kill them?

[Promethean]

Casters won't at all be impeded in their ability to cast spells, so all you're really doing is taking hit points away from the classes that desperately need them. Plus, summons will *easily* outstrip any martial at taking hits for the party since their hit dice are unaffected.

Not necessarily, That's what the Armor hardness and HP are for. A martial class with just plate armor would effectively have an extra 40 hp and a Hardness(as a DR) 10 vs everything but blunt and magic. Not to mention(by SRD) for every +1(including special abilities) armor gets adds +2 hardness and +10 hp. A 20th level martial class in +10(+5 base and +5 in special abilities) adamantine plate would have +153 hp and hardness 40 vs everything but blunt weapons(not counting normal DR 3/- and any energy resistance). Considering DR(and by my rules extension, Hardness) counts VS every hit, and by My rules hardness applies VS magic(unlike DR), Martials in Good armor have Much more effective health.

With sub-classing, Martials can also become divine casters or Maneuvers users on top of that, and no one would Start as a wizard. Everyone would always be somewhere around equal.


I believe all spells do 1 dice of damage, even the death effects becomes 1 dice of some sort of damage.

This pretty much sounds like using rules from Chainmail with a bit of your house rules.


In Chainmail, Players roll 1d6 to determine Spell Level of the Wizard, and All Wizards have 2 Hit Dice
Heroes and Anti-Heroes have 4 Hit Dice
Rangers are Heroes equipped with +1 magic weapons
Super Heroes and Super Anti-Heroes have 8 Hit Dice


Remember that in Chainmail, a figure represents a Sergeant leading 20 soldiers, a Hero represents a Captain leading 80 soldiers, and a Superhero represents a Field Officer (Major, Lieutenant Colonel, or Colonel) leading 160 soldiers in their Company.
Rangers represent 5th level character of sort and leads 100 soldiers.

Spells are based on caster level, so lower HD wouldn't factor in. A wizard casting fireball and having it reflected back is at massive risk of Killing Themselves though...

I Might look into chainmail for idea on how to best handle armies of NPCs without slowing down combat, though. Dungeons are a rare think to find in history, so I'm thinking of basing the PC's adventures around facing un-staggered hordes of monsters in rather straightforward bases rather than maze-like structures with leveled battles(it also seems like it'd make PCs feel more powerful at higher levels when they come back and mow through an army of goblins or foot soldiers)

[Hackulator]

One thing you might want to change a bit for accuracy. I am not 100% certain as I'm not a medieval scholar, however I'm pretty sure that to damage heavily armored people they generally used piercing weapons such as picks, so you might want to switch up what goes through armor DR.

[Promethean]

One thing you might want to change a bit for accuracy. I am not 100% certain as I'm not a medieval scholar, however I'm pretty sure that to damage heavily armored people they generally used piercing weapons such as picks, so you might want to switch up what goes through armor DR.

That was the Point of using Picks though, to get through armor(or at least get more pressure force on the person inside). Otherwise they'd have just stuck with swords(which are Much easier to use).

[Ruethgar]

Awakened Dungeonbred Magebred Warbeast Titanic Lizard would be my choice for ECL 0 race were this a proper challenge, wouldn't do the templates in actual play. Mmmmm ECL 1 with 29 HD. Probably go with a caster so I could shift into a smaller body.

[mabriss lethe]

while my advice may be only marginally helpful, It really sounds like d&d wouldn't be a particularly good platform for a game like this, simply because there are so many moving parts that assume characters HP will scale with level. sure you could bash some system together that will work, but there are plenty of professionally built games that run very lethal systems that might be better fits.

that said, an easy compromise might be to take a page from... ugh. I can't believe I'm about to say this... Palladium. It uses a dual HP system. (triple HP system in their more ridiculous games) Mortal creatures have both Hit Points and SDC. (structural damage capacity) Characters have only a few HP, and losing them represents taking massive damage, broken bones, ruptured organs, etc. sdc, however, is more ablative in nature. it represents the amount of punishment the character can shrug off, roll with, etc, until they get seriously hurt. the character will have some sdc, but a lot of it will come from armor or other protective items (Once armor's sdc is overcome, it's broken and needs to be repaired or replaced, with magic items often healing themselves over time) since some attacks go straight to hp, they can be really dangerous, since they bypass sdc entirely. (now if you'll excuse me, I need a shower. talking about the mechanics of Palladium/Rifts in anything resembling a positive light makes me feel a bit unclean)

[Hackulator]

That was the Point of using Picks though, to get through armor(or at least get more pressure force on the person inside). Otherwise they'd have just stuck with swords(which are Much easier to use).

All I mean is you have heavy armor not having it's DR overcome b piercing, only blunt, which seems odd to me. Or maybe I'm misreading the rules.

[zlefin]

@promethean
are you changing how hardness/hp work for enchanted armor?
because by the srd, it only improves as a result of the enhancement bonus; other bonuses/special abilities don't improve the hardness/hp.

while martials in good armor would have more effective health, so would casters in heavy armor.
I'm also not sure how this system represents an improvement over the normal way in game; either way you get piles of extra hp to protect you from stuff.

none of it seems to really change the dominance of casters (when they're played well); and I'm sure there's lots of spells that would bypass the armor, nullifying all those extra hit points; especially seeing as by definition all the characters still only have 1 hit die.

I concur with others that it feels like you'd be better off using a system other than DnD for this (or just playing e6)

[Promethean]

All I mean is you have heavy armor not having it's DR overcome b piercing, only blunt, which seems odd to me. Or maybe I'm misreading the rules.

Picks couldn't really get through plate IRL either, but plate was Far from the most common armor. Gambeson and Mail armors, which are the IRL equivalent of light and medium armor, were far more common. IRL light armor(gambeson) did Great against swords, but not nearly as well VS picks, axes and maces. Mail did better, but not completely. Plate armor is just awesome(unless the enemy attacks mainly by immobilizing you, or by shaking you like a hamster in a tin can)


@promethean
are you changing how hardness/hp work for enchanted armor?
because by the srd, it only improves as a result of the enhancement bonus; other bonuses/special abilities don't improve the hardness/hp.

while martials in good armor would have more effective health, so would casters in heavy armor.
I'm also not sure how this system represents an improvement over the normal way in game; either way you get piles of extra hp to protect you from stuff.

none of it seems to really change the dominance of casters (when they're played well); and I'm sure there's lots of spells that would bypass the armor, nullifying all those extra hit points; especially seeing as by definition all the characters still only have 1 hit die.

I concur with others that it feels like you'd be better off using a system other than DnD for this (or just playing e6)

Huh, I didn't see the note for special abilities. Eh, If a +5 vorpal sword is going to cost as much as a +10 weapon anyway it might as well contribute to the item's integrity. Will be henceforth ignoring that note.

Unfortunately the main point of this exercise is to see if you can do realistic medieval in D&D Specifically. We know very well their are better designed systems for it, but they were Designed for it.

This is honestly a mad science project centered around seeing if we Can, and if so if we can balance it, rather than if it's the most effective medieval simulator.

As for Casters VS Martials, that's not really the point of the medieval simulation(D&D wizards would be just as overpowered VS medieval knights as they would VS fighters).

I added the Sub-Class thing as a side thought, I made it before this idea mostly to see if it'd balance Magic VS Martial for another project(that unfortunately fell apart due to scheduling). After all, if Everyone is a caster/Book of nine swords player, No one is!(cue Syndrome Laughing). Honestly though, I don't think there Is a way to balance casters and martial characters without ruining one of the archetypes in question. My philosophy as a DM was just tolet the casters do their thing, and make magic items, grafts, and alchemy cheaper/more available in my world-building to let Martials characters become effectively Space Marines

You may also note from my replies that I and my group kinda like to play Mad-Scientist with the rules/character creation/laws of grammar anyway.

[Mike Miller]

If you can find a copy of the Grim-N-Gritty ruleset, you may like it. It was a slight change of the 3.5 system for "realism." It changed how armor worked to better reflect real life armor, among other things.

[Eldariel]

All I mean is you have heavy armor not having it's DR overcome b piercing, only blunt, which seems odd to me. Or maybe I'm misreading the rules.

Historically, against late medieval heavy armor you'd use blunt weapons against fully armored enemies, because the shock is very effective against heavy metal armor and the armor is nigh' impossible to penetrate without spending unreasonable amounts of time hacking at it; therefore your goal is to disable the combatant inside rather than trying to get through the armor. As such, blunt being the weapon of choice against heavy armor makes perfect sense; piercing weapon is only effective when it gets through (i.e. finds a gap, on a critical hit), otherwise it just gets deflected.

[maruahm]

Historically, against late medieval heavy armor you'd use blunt weapons against fully armored enemies, because the shock is very effective against heavy metal armor and the armor is nigh' impossible to penetrate without spending unreasonable amounts of time hacking at it; therefore your goal is to disable the combatant inside rather than trying to get through the armor. As such, blunt being the weapon of choice against heavy armor makes perfect sense; piercing weapon is only effective when it gets through (i.e. finds a gap, on a critical hit), otherwise it just gets deflected.

While it's generally true blunt weapons saw increased use against heavy armor, non-blunt weapons weren't ineffective. Consider the flanged mace, the morning star, the zweihander, or the estoc, all sharp-edged weapons which saw success against heavy armor.

[Promethean]

While it's generally true blunt weapons saw increased use against heavy armor, non-blunt weapons weren't ineffective. Consider the flanged mace, the morning star, the zweihander, or the estoc, all sharp-edged weapons which saw success against heavy armor.

The estoc was mostly a side arm as most swords were, the others effectiveness VS armor was More due to their blunt force as well( the first two being a mace with blades and as mace with spikes respectively[effective for the reasons maces are effective I.E. Blunt force], the third being a massive two handed sword[effective for the reasons bladed pole-arms were effective, I.E. Blunt force]). The main reasons all these weapons were used was their superior effectiveness VS lesser armored Foes(mail has even less protection VS Blunt and it gets really messed up wen you have pressure as well as blunt force), so Bladed/Spiked weapons were effective if they could also generate a lot of force(unlike swords, with notable exceptions like rapiers and estocs that focused on stabbing, but the minimum level of training you needed to use these swords effectively meant they weren't widely used).

Plate Armor, Especially hardened steel plate armor, made knights into what were effectively waking tanks in a time before ballistics. Which is why they were incredibly unlikely to die even from heavy weapons as apposed to being immobilized and either being ransomed or murdered with a dagger.

[zlefin]

Picks couldn't really get through plate IRL either, but plate was Far from the most common armor. Gambeson and Mail armors, which are the IRL equivalent of light and medium armor, were far more common. IRL light armor(gambeson) did Great against swords, but not nearly as well VS picks, axes and maces. Mail did better, but not completely. Plate armor is just awesome(unless the enemy attacks mainly by immobilizing you, or by shaking you like a hamster in a tin can)



Huh, I didn't see the note for special abilities. Eh, If a +5 vorpal sword is going to cost as much as a +10 weapon anyway it might as well contribute to the item's integrity. Will be henceforth ignoring that note.

Unfortunately the main point of this exercise is to see if you can do realistic medieval in D&D Specifically. We know very well their are better designed systems for it, but they were Designed for it.

This is honestly a mad science project centered around seeing if we Can, and if so if we can balance it, rather than if it's the most effective medieval simulator.

As for Casters VS Martials, that's not really the point of the medieval simulation(D&D wizards would be just as overpowered VS medieval knights as they would VS fighters).

I added the Sub-Class thing as a side thought, I made it before this idea mostly to see if it'd balance Magic VS Martial for another project(that unfortunately fell apart due to scheduling). After all, if Everyone is a caster/Book of nine swords player, No one is!(cue Syndrome Laughing). Honestly though, I don't think there Is a way to balance casters and martial characters without ruining one of the archetypes in question. My philosophy as a DM was just tolet the casters do their thing, and make magic items, grafts, and alchemy cheaper/more available in my world-building to let Martials characters become effectively Space Marines

You may also note from my replies that I and my group kinda like to play Mad-Scientist with the rules/character creation/laws of grammar anyway.

a +10 weapon costs a LOT more than a +5 vorpal sword cuz it's epic; non-epic enhancement only goes up to +5.

hf with your project; but I'd quesiton the extent to which it's doing realistic combat in actual DnD; as you're adding lots and lots of houserules. obviously you can get realistic combat to work if you add a sufficient number of houserules, that's necessarily true; but the extent to which the core remains "DnD" gets iffier. but as long as you're all having fun it's cool.

[maruahm]

The estoc was mostly a side arm as most swords were, the others effectiveness VS armor was More due to their blunt force as well( the first two being a mace with blades and as mace with spikes respectively[effective for the reasons maces are effective I.E. Blunt force], the third being a massive two handed sword[effective for the reasons bladed pole-arms were effective, I.E. Blunt force]). The main reasons all these weapons were used was their superior effectiveness VS lesser armored Foes(mail has even less protection VS Blunt and it gets really messed up wen you have pressure as well as blunt force), so Bladed/Spiked weapons were effective if they could also generate a lot of force(unlike swords, with notable exceptions like rapiers and estocs that focused on stabbing, but the minimum level of training you needed to use these swords effectively meant they weren't widely used).

Plate Armor, Especially hardened steel plate armor, made knights into what were effectively waking tanks in a time before ballistics. Which is why they were incredibly unlikely to die even from heavy weapons as apposed to being immobilized and either being ransomed or murdered with a dagger.

It's true that the estoc was mainly a sidearm, if carried at all, but I'm fairly certain the zweihander was a primary weapon. It's also true that the sharp weapons which were employed against heavy armor relied on striking mass to generate a lot of force in a small surface area, and that full plate was often dealt with by disabling the wearer rather than penetrating the armor.

I was just saying that, as a blanket statement, you weren't necessarily using blunt weapons against full plate. You weren't using longswords for sure, unless your plan was to knock your opponent down and sneak the blade up through a gap, but you could've been using a variety of other sharp weapons which weren't terrible against plate.

[Promethean]

a +10 weapon costs a LOT more than a +5 vorpal sword cuz it's epic; non-epic enhancement only goes up to +5.

hf with your project; but I'd quesiton the extent to which it's doing realistic combat in actual DnD; as you're adding lots and lots of houserules. obviously you can get realistic combat to work if you add a sufficient number of houserules, that's necessarily true; but the extent to which the core remains "DnD" gets iffier. but as long as you're all having fun it's cool.

Huh, I never looked at the epic rules very closely I guess. Never really used them.

The chart used for enhancement Pre-epic uses +1 to +10 as a measure of how many +X Special abilities you have, correct? It sort of makes no sense to me why an enhancement bonus of +6 to +10 would become 10x the expense if it came from a reqular bonus rather than a special ability. I mean, enhancements of 11+ make sense just fine, but it seems more like a trade of consistent damage VS special powers in the +1 to +10 range.

Optimization-wise, People normally ignore getting a higher enhancement bonus in favor of more special abilities anyway, so it hardly seems unbalanced.


It's true that the estoc was mainly a sidearm, if carried at all, but I'm fairly certain the zweihander was a primary weapon. It's also true that the sharp weapons which were employed against heavy armor relied on striking mass to generate a lot of force in a small surface area, and that full plate was often dealt with by disabling the wearer rather than penetrating the armor.

I was just saying that, as a blanket statement, you weren't necessarily using blunt weapons against full plate. You weren't using longswords for sure, unless your plan was to knock your opponent down and sneak the blade up through a gap, but you could've been using a variety of other sharp weapons which weren't terrible against plate.

That's why I was dealing with Hardness similar to a DR. Damage is reduced rather than removed completely, but if you have the right feats(like power attack, and a large attack bonus) you can still hurt someone in plate with a regular sword.