A system where you don't get tougher to kill?

[Weiser_Cain]

At least not automatically?
Does this already exist? What sort of hurdles would I run into if I did this but didn't want the PC's dropping like flies?

[Xefas]

You may have to be more specific. Characters in Don't Rest Your Head don't really get tougher to kill as they advance, but that's because character advancement is your character going insane and being hunted by progressively more monstrous denizens of the dark city until they inevitably die, or become an abomination, or are subsumed into the city as a lifeless shade.

Characters in Pilgrims of the Flying Temple don't get tougher to kill, because there's no character advancement.

In Burning Wheel, characters rarely, if ever, get better at taking a hit, but they get better at defending themselves from getting hit. A master swordsman is amazing at parrying and dodging, but he's just as dead as everyone else if you run him through with a sword.

[The Rose Dragon]

Define "tougher to kill". Someone who learns to dodge bullets is tougher to kill than someone who can't, just like someone who can take twenty bullets to the head and live is tougher to kill than someone who is lucky to live after one.

And yes, there are various systems covering various points in the spectrum of "PCs get harder to kill". In fact, there are relatively few systems where PCs get automatically tougher to kill. In most systems, it is a deliberate choice to make PCs more durable to attacks, not an automatic assumption.

[Seerow]

Most point buy systems are going to have PCs only getting tougher to kill if they invest resources into it.

If you want everyone to always be the exact same level of easy to kill regardless of specialization or investment though, I can't think of anything.

[toapat]

even DnD falls within the range because a large number of classes dont increase the survivability of the character. T1+2 are the exeption, not the rule

[Rakaydos]

the Cardinal System has a rather heavilly bounded surviviability curve. If someone is enough better (or lucky) than you at swordplay to actually hit you with a sword, there is a limited number of dice you can roll to reduce the damage (by 1 point each), and if 4 points of damage get through in a single hit, you are down. (with a 1/day plot armor option for heros and villlians.)

[Xaotiq1]

True20 by Green Ronin. Deadlands Classic, Pinnacle Entertainment Group. Savage Worlds, the same.

[Knaight]

With the notable exception of D&D and its derivatives, characters not getting tougher to kill is pretty much standard. There's cases like ORE, Fudge, and World of Darkness where basically everyone has the exact same amount of wound boxes, cases like Savage Worlds, Mutants and Masterminds, and True 20 where basically everyone shares wound thresholds and effects, and even cases like GURPS and WYRM where hit points are in use, but most characters are in a narrow range and they don't routinely increase.

As for not wanting the PCs dropping like flies, systems which use this tend to also not have damage that just skyrockets through the game, and tend to have defenses actually matter. In D&D, basically anyone with typical mail and a shield has an AC in the high teens (dependent somewhat on edition, a few feats, etc.) In Fudge, there are opposed rolls, and getting through the defense of a Legendary swordsman is far more difficult than getting through the defense of a Mediocre swordsman (bell curves around Legendary (+4) and Mediocre (-1), respectively).

[Set]

Pretty much as stated above, most games don't make PCs 'tougher' in the same way as D&D does.

A vampire in World of Darkness might be harder to hurt, through purchasing Fortitude (essentially DR), but not all vampires get easy access to that, and it comes slowly, and their health levels never change. A PC in GURPS might buy up their defenses, and become harder to *hit,* but their hit points rarely increase. (Although animals and monsters and superheroes may have significantly larger pools of hit points, and a PC can buy a few extra hit points, if they want.) In both of these games, a 'high level character' might be as vulnerable to a sixty foot fall as a normal person, while even a mid-level D&D character could eat the 6d6 (average 21 damage) and walk away from it.

One side-effect of pools of hit points, is that healing effects are larger. In GURPS, the best ever heal spell, Major Healing, which might eat up half your healer's total store of magic, is going to heal eight points. Since even the buffest warriors have maybe 13 HT, and *might* heal one a day (if they make a HT roll), without magical aid, that's a huge deal. In D&D, that's a cure light wounds, the weakest of all possible magical cures.

And in Vampire, where *everybody* has seven health levels (or maybe eight, if they are the size of Andre the Giant!), being able to use vampire blood or werewolf regeneration to heal one health level a round is a good deal.

[Weiser_Cain]

I'm not talking about my setting in this thread but there's almost no combat healing in most of it.

[Rakaydos]

I'm not talking about my setting in this thread but there's almost no combat healing in most of it.

so, you basically want any system where defenses matter, as Knaight said. Where instead of "Oh, hitpoints are a measure of fatigue and luck," the system says "This is how much you can take. Dont like it, dont get hit."

Damage ranges tend to be smaller- any success-based system (WoD, Shadowrun, Cardinal) are sharply bell curved with very limited modifiers.

[toapat]

*snip*

Id argue that, at least with 3rd edition, most players will not see actual increase in their survivability relative to what enemies can do to the player. the exception being an unlimited fullcaster like a wizard, cleric, or druid, which does get harder to kill relative to level, to the point where a level 20 wizard is litterally impossible to kill

defense may be easily increased in Third, but increased does not necessarily mean improved.

[Rakaydos]

Id argue that, at least with 3rd edition, most players will not see actual increase in their survivability relative to what enemies can do to the player. the exception being an unlimited fullcaster like a wizard, cleric, or druid, which does get harder to kill relative to level, to the point where a level 20 wizard is litterally impossible to kill

defense may be easily increased in Third, but increased does not necessarily mean improved.

Which raises a point specifically addressed in 5th- if the numbers change, but the effects dont, why are the numbers changing in the first place?

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Tank armor is way heavier than a bulletproof vest but it confers roughly the same level of protection against artillery that a bulletproof vest would confer against bullets. The relative protection does not change but the absolute protection changes by orders of magnitude.


Your "why do the numbers change if the effects don't" question is like asking "why does tank armor need to be thicker than a bulletproof vest if it confers the same relative protection?".

[TuggyNE]

Your "why do the numbers change if the effects don't" question is like asking "why does tank armor need to be thicker than a bulletproof vest if it confers the same relative protection?".

That's a much punchier way of saying what I wanted to, thanks.

[Just to Browse]

So, like, a system where your HP doesn't go up but your AC, saves, miss chance, etc. do?

I don't know systems like that, but it looks like it would encourage maximizing offense or defense, because a defensive specialist will probably be The Best and just flail at enemies until they fall down while never getting hit, which will in turn encourage offensive specialists.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

I'd like a system where your HP don't go up without justification, but if the justification exists they do. For example, in that system you could have a fighter almost entirely reliant on actively dodging and defending against attacks whereas someone who can shapeshift into a dragon could rely on high HP and DR but is more easily hit.


Also, consider what a given ability score means. A fighter with a Constitution of 10 has the constitution of a normal human. A fighter with a constitution of 18, 2 increases through heroic achievement (level-ups) and a +6 belt of constitution has a total of 26, which is as much as a blue whale has. At 8th level, the first guy is going to have 44 HP while the second guy is going to have 108.
Now, consider what happens when both are shot in the head by a +3 heavy crossbow. "Shot in the head" is a pretty good flavor for the "max damage critical" as mechanic. That's 45 damage. The heroic-level fighter with the normal human constitution is dying. Achilles, with the constitution far beyond human limits, would need a couple more shots to the head before he's killed. Essentially, the high HP are justified in this case.






Simply put, DnD characters are not normal humans. A mere 1st level half-orc of max strength can lift 800 pounds, significantly more than the olympic record. A max-strength 20th level raging Barbarian has the strength of a hundred average men, literally. He could punch through a foot-thick iron wall in seconds with his bare hands with the right feats. And he can, with justification, survive being shot many times.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

5th

Just noticed the reference. This is the edition where Asmodeus, king of Hell, would struggle to lift a small car, hits maybe 50% more accurately than a commoner and is as easy to hit as a newbie fighter in armor, right?


I'll be staying with Pathfinder and laughing at yet another WotC fiasco.

[Perseus]

Just noticed the reference. This is the edition where Asmodeus, king of Hell, would struggle to lift a small car, hits maybe 50% more accurately than a commoner and is as easy to hit as a newbie fighter in armor, right?


I'll be staying with Pathfinder and laughing at yet another WotC fiasco.

Please do stay with Pathfinder then, D&D is better off without this sort of attitude during a playtest. You should look at all of pathfinders (paizo) messed up stuff before you bash a playtest.

But on topic...

D&D 2e

Yeah... Most classes can only take a very minuscule amount of dmg at high level compared to low level. The Warrior (Fighter) is about the only class that gets a ton more HP.

Sure 2e spells are broken but if you sneeze on a level 20 mage... Well she ain't casting a thing.

[Seerow]

Please do stay with Pathfinder then, D&D is better off without this sort of attitude during a playtest. You should look at all of pathfinders (paizo) messed up stuff before you bash a playtest.

Except the things she complained about in 5e are literally 5e's stated design goals, not an issue of weird playtest quirks that will get ironed out by the time things go live.

If 5e goes live and Asmodeus can't be taken down by a squad of commoners, I'd call the whole DDN playtest a sham.

[Certified]

Even D&D and it's derivatives don't have you becoming tougher to kill in a meta way. The CR as compared to the Party Level is intended to create a consistent Challenge to the characters, that is to say, an even CR is 1/4th the party's resources. This scale slides up and down. So if you are level one facing a CR 1 it takes 1/4 the party's resources, the same if you are level 20 facing a CR 20. Everything else is window dressing to give you the illusion you are actually tougher.

[toapat]

Even D&D and it's derivatives don't have you becoming tougher to kill in a meta way. The CR as compared to the Party Level is intended to create a consistent Challenge to the characters, that is to say, an even CR is 1/4th the party's resources. This scale slides up and down. So if you are level one facing a CR 1 it takes 1/4 the party's resources, the same if you are level 20 facing a CR 20. Everything else is window dressing to give you the illusion you are actually tougher.

the problem is moreso still that we dont have an explicit definition of what the OP wants fulfilled. DnD, expecially later on in the first 3 editions, went from light brawls between the PCs and mobs, to nuclear warfare at high levels barely survivable by any involved not willing to become a Necropolitain sorcerer

[Rakaydos]

Except the things she complained about in 5e are literally 5e's stated design goals, not an issue of weird playtest quirks that will get ironed out by the time things go live.

If 5e goes live and Asmodeus can't be taken down by a squad of commoners, I'd call the whole DDN playtest a sham.

Because my understanding is that the king of hell holds his positiun through a number of schemes and political deals, not through raw force of personal strength.

A Balor (Demon) might be a better case of something needing to be impressively powerful.

[Rakaydos]

So, like, a system where your HP doesn't go up but your AC, saves, miss chance, etc. do?

I don't know systems like that, but it looks like it would encourage maximizing offense or defense, because a defensive specialist will probably be The Best and just flail at enemies until they fall down while never getting hit, which will in turn encourage offensive specialists.

Most skill based systems are kinda like this- only instead of "Offensive/Defensive specialists" you have "Combat Specialists" and "Social characters", Entire builds that, while "rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf" can focus on whatever the game is ACTUALLY all about.

[toapat]

Because my understanding is that the king of hell holds his positiun through a number of schemes and political deals, not through raw force of personal strength.

A Balor (Demon) might be a better case of something needing to be impressively powerful.

while you are correct, a God should still be able to compete in Car-Fu duels where each divinity has at least 15 throwing Semi's

[Knaight]

So, like, a system where your HP doesn't go up but your AC, saves, miss chance, etc. do?

I don't know systems like that, but it looks like it would encourage maximizing offense or defense, because a defensive specialist will probably be The Best and just flail at enemies until they fall down while never getting hit, which will in turn encourage offensive specialists.

Offense and defense are probably tied to the same skill, odds are good there is some sort of curvature in play where maximizing one thing is really expensive, and unless the game is ludicrously combat focused (D&D is an outlier in how much attention is paid to combat, for reference) doing so will likely make everything else more difficult.

Also, given that you haven't seen any system like this your speculation is a bit questionable to begin with, if only because this implies unfamiliarity with a lot of relevant mechanics.

[NichG]

Its hard to know if the OP meant to go as far as this, but I think it'd be an interesting exercise to imagine the consequences of a system that has combat, character growth that affects combat, and at the same time absolutely no increase in defense/survivability of any kind through character advancement.

It seems natural that this would devolve into rocket tag, but I wonder if we couldn't get around that by being very clever about what you do get with advancement. What if its all about positioning/detection? Think something like a sniper match - a low level sniper might miss their shot, but a high level one will always hit and kill given a clean shot. So it becomes less about directly dodging the attack or surviving the attack, and more about ensuring that the attack cannot happen to you before you get an attack against them.

I don't think one could make a super-general system with this, but maybe it'd be possible to model a very specific kind of fight like the sniper duel. Consider something like the following for a '5 level system':

To tell if you hit or not, you must roll a number of d6's equal to your level. A 4,5, or 6 on any die in your die pool means you successfully make the shot. By default, a shot must be taken from a 'set' position - you have to set up your rifle and kneel down behind it. The default range is 200 meters.

Long ranged shots/trick shots/etc are based on abilities you get as you level, and remove dice from your die pool.

Default 'trick shots':
- Moving target. You can take a shot at a moving target at -1 die (-3 dice if on a vehicle instead of on foot).
- Long-ranged shot. You can take -1 die per 100m extra to attempt a shot at longer than normal range.
- Screened shot. You can take -4 dice to shoot at a target through a smokescreen or dust cloud.
- Reaction fire. You can take -1 dice to shoot someone entering your field of fire on their turn.

Lv2: Echolocation. You can precisely pinpoint the direction and altitude of a shot.
Lv3: 'Its where I'd set up'. You have an instinctual understanding of line of sight and can tell what areas are dangerous to move through. Each round, you can choose one location and ask if it is being covered by an enemy sniper, and receive a true answer.
Lv4: Through-shot. You can take -2 dice to make a shot through a window or other breakable surface and hit someone on the other side. You take a further -2 if its going through a second interface.
Lv5: Snap-shot. You can take -4 dice to make a 'standard' shot without first setting up, but you cannot apply any other tricks to it.

I can't think of many ways to extend this further, but I think this would be roughly playable as is (though it might degenerate with the Lv5 ability).

[the_david]

Take you favorite version of D&D, then take out all the numbers that increase with leveling. Essentially, you only get class abilities when you level as the numbers will stay at level 1. Or whatever the level is that you'd prefer.
Erhm, and find a way to fix spells.

You might call it E1.

[Rezby]

re: The_David's E1 idea: I like it. It seems hella interesting.

For casting, it would make casting crap out a lot sooner since casters must have relevant stat at 10+ spell level in order to cast that spell.

Set caster level equal to 1 always.

Remove magic items and spells that boost or enhance stats in any way since they become so so much more powerful (or just make them incredibly high leveled gear, on artifact level, for items, and make the spells that do that be 3 or so spell levels higher?)

sneak attack and the like stays at 1d6, perhaps instead of increasing damage dice, increase die size every other time? so instead 1d6, 2d6, 3d6 over some levels, the rogue would get 1d6, then 1d8 when they'd normally get 3d6, getting nothing for 2d6, getting 1d10 instead of 5d6, etc?

OP: Dark Heresy is a system where yeah, you can gain wounds (hp) if you spend your points on it, or you can increase your dodge or your parry or all of the above, but being shot at in the open is still hella lethal, even for somebody who optimized their build to be survivable. Example: I was in a tier 5 (out of like 10 or so tiers, called 'ranks') game, and my buddy had made a character with the most damage soak possible and the biggest armor he could afford - two sniper shots into a round and he was out cold.

[CombatOwl]

At least not automatically?
Does this already exist? What sort of hurdles would I run into if I did this but didn't want the PC's dropping like flies?

Oh, there are plenty. Dark Heresy, for example, does not automatically make you tougher to kill, though you can choose to spend XP to take talents and advancements that help. Fate Core provides very, very little means to improve your ability to take damage--you can gain an extra box or two in stress boxes but that's it.

There's a whole category of games that don't use HP and have no levels--like World of Darkness or WEG d6 games. Those games don't automatically make you harder to kill, though there are things you can do to somewhat improve your ability to take a hit. In some cases you can actually advance that ability quite far ("Okay, my Ventrue advances his stamina to 6 and Fortitude discipline to 6, and wears heavy SWAT armor everywhere he goes..."), but it isn't an automatic increase and kind of requires you to do crazy cheesy stuff to get there.