Hits vs HP

[ryguysolis]

I'm considering lightening my load during session prep. I want it to be even easier to prep monsters than out of the box C&C, my laziness knows no bounds.

I'm considering using the HD number as the number of hits needed to kill the monster. ie 1HD monsters go down in 1 hit, 6HD monsters take 6 hits. I won't be able to run it by my players until we play next so I was hoping to get some feedback here first.

Obviously this would level the playing field for all weapons and eliminate weapon damage as a consideration. That would mean less rolling for players, which could be less fun as most players love to roll dice. On the other hand, combat would be easier on both sides of the screen as I could just make a checkmark by the monster every time it got hit.

I'm open to any and all criticism of this idea. Would it make combat too easy? What impact do you foresee regarding the various types of HD? What else am I overlooking?

[Piperdog]

Well, I get where you're going with the idea...a little like the Savage Worlds wound system which is ...er...fast and furious. With C&C though, rolling for damage is really an integral part of the game....without it, strength bonuses, various weapon sizes, magic bonuses....don't come into play. If one hit, 1 wound is what you are wanting to do, look into Savage Worlds; it may be your cup of tea.

[finarvyn]

With the move to the new boards, some of the old stuff got misplaced. At least, I know I posted this to the old boards after the move and didn’t realize I should shut up there and come here.

Your suggestion strongly parallels the OD&D game at its earliest. OD&D (Gygax & Arneson, 1974) was derived from the Chainmail miniatures rules (Gygax & Perrin, 1971) and in Chainmail they hadn't "invented" hit points yet so a 4th level character would take four hits in the same round to kill.

When OD&D first burst on the scene (prior to the Greyhawk supplement) all weapons did 1d6 of damage. Some particularly nasty monsters such as the Giant did 2d6, but most monsters were also 1d6. At the same time, all monster hit dice were 1d6. As such, the d6 becomes sort of a "currency of combat" and all dice could be simplified to becoming hits. I've played several OD&D campaigns under this notion and it works quite well overall, although some of my players felt a little cheated because they didn't get to roll as many dice.

This becomes a little tricky once non-d6's are introduced because one die no longer quite equals another. I'm not sure if it simplifies much, but you could convert all dice to d6's first and then simplify to where a die equals a hit. This would require a calculator or a spreadsheet, but once you've made the conversion it would simplify things later on.

Dice conversion:
My simplified fractions are all within 5% of the mathematical answer.
1 = 3/10 of a d6
1d4 = 3/4 of a d6
1d6 = 1 d6
1d8 = 5/4 of a d6
1d10 = 3/2 of a d6
1d12 = 9/5 of a d6

Suppose a monster has 5d8+1 hit dice. Take 5 (for the number) times 5/4 (for the type) plus 3/10 (for the +1). 5*(5/4) + 3/10 = 6.55, so the monster has roughly 6d6 hit dice, or could take 6 hits.

Don't like math? I did the grunt work and put together a handy chart. (Although I'm not sure why it displays so small.... )

Cross reference the type of die (along the top) with the number how of dice (left side) to see how many d6's it equals. For example, a creature with 5d10 hit dice could take 8 hits.

I dunno, Serl, but one we both have very different takes on this concept. That’s unusual because I almost always agree with your position on things, but perhaps one or the other misunderstands what the OP is trying to accomplish.

I believe that his plan is simply to reduce variable hit points to a lower but standard number of “hits” taken, but to maintain the balance of C&C wherever possible.

In my writing below, I’ve tried to distinguish between a “hit point” rolled and a “hit” or die of damage and that a die of damage is approximately 3.5 points under the old scale. Non d6 dice would need to be translated into d6 dice according to my chart in my earlier post.

It would eliminate some creature "special powers" such as a giant who, sans magic casting, really only has decent HP and the ability to inflict lots of damage. If they deal only 1 HP (effectively) then their sheer awesomeness reduces quite significantly -- there is no difference between a creature that can lift mountains and hurl them and one that can barely wield a balsa spork (like a kobold, for example.)

I agree that some creature “special powers” might be eliminated, but your example isn’t one of them. One would simply scale their damage accordingly. It wouldn’t mess up any balance at all. If a stone giant could lob a boulder for 2d12 damage, that translates into 4d6 (by my chart) or 4 hits damage. That’s pretty awesome.

It would also make certain abilities such as combat dominance far more effective, which can be a good thing, as all one need do is hit... not actually deal damage to kill, and therefore, also remove practically every modifier to damage such as Strength and magic weapons; alternatively, they could still exist, even "as is" but these then become incredibly potent and would have to be used very sparingly or monsters would quickly become mooks (which may be a fine idea.)

I don’t see that combat dominance changes much at all, since there is still the limitation of which monsters can be dominated, and making it hit-kill works pretty well against those monsters anyway because they tend to have so few hit points that essentially this is the way it plays out anyway. True, a +1 damage is only 2/7 hits damage in the new system, but while smaller modifiers may get lost in the roundoff they can still “stack” to the point where enough of them could add up. Remember that +3.5 becomes another die of damage (another “hit”) so any +2 would “round up” to make another point of damage; this could translate into a +2 stat bonus, a +2 weapon, a +1 stat bonus with +1 weapon, and so on. It takes a little prep time with a calculator or spreadsheet, but front loaded prep makes the numbers easy later on.

Or, the CK could just allow the player to roll damage the usual way (since players seem to like this) and divide the total damage by 3.5 in order to find the number of hits inflicted. I don’t like this notion so much because it requires more on-the-fly mathematics, but it would allow all of a character’s stat and weapon bonuses to remain intact without losing anything due to rounding. If you do it this way first have the player roll damage dice and remove pips in groups of seven (each seven pips is two hits) until the number reduces to something smaller than seven, then if there are four remaining give an extra hit. That allows quick results without having to keep a calculator handy. (For example, if they roll 15 points of damage I don't know 15 divieded by 3.5 in my head but I can subtract 7 and 7 again with 1 remaining. That gives 2 hits plus 2 hits with 1 point remaining. That gives 4 hits and the 1 point remaining gets lost because it's not quite another hit. The character does 4 hits to the monster.)

And how do spells interact with this. Is a fireball a single hit to a bunch of people, or multiple hits?

I’d say that you shouldn’t change the rules at all. The rules specify that a fireball does 1d6 per level of the caster to everyone in the area, and that translates into one hit per level of the caster to everyone in the area. Heck, fireballs are easy because you don’t even need to switch the dice type first!

What about Magic Missile? At 9th level, are you throwing out 5 hits?

It turns out that 1d4+1 is very close to 1d6 (2-5 average 3.5, compared to 1-6 average 3.5) so I’d directly translate this into hits. Again, the point is not to change the balance and to interpret the rulebook as closely as possible. So, the caster does one hit to a single creature at 1st level, two hits to a single creature at 3rd level, three hits at 5th level, four at 7th level, and five at 9th. You are correct!

XP awards, if used by the rules, would also become much lower -- even than they are already -- as they are based on an assumed, plus each HP. For higher HD monsters, this can mean significant differences.

No, you just have to tweak the chart to reflect the new balance or just use the numbers quoted in Monsters & Treasure. The overall balance of the game hasn’t changed, only the scale of the numbers. XP totals should remain the same for monster kills.

Regeneration would become much more powerful, and various healing spells would all need to be reworked -- for example, does cure light wounds restore 1 Hit or what? Cure serious must then restore 1d3 or 1d4 or some other variable amount...

* Regeneration (2 hit points per round, for example) would be scaled appropriately in advance (2 / 3.5 = 0.57 = 1 hit regenerated per round).
* Cure light wounds (1d8 hp) cures 1 hit, based on my chart.
* Cure serious wounds (3d8 hp) cures 2 hits.
* Cure critical wounds (5d8 hp) cures 4 hits.

All-in-all, it can be done, but there are sundry effects for its consideration.

It just requires more prep time at the start. I still think it’s a neat idea. I did this years ago for OD&D and might tinker with some charts for C&C if there is enough interest. (Or submit it to the Crusader.) OD&D was easier because it was all d6-based early on (although this changed with the introduction of the Greyhawk supplement) and C&C makes use of lots of dice types so you’ll need to convert dice types. That’s where my chart comes in.

Does that help any?

[serleran]

I dunno, Serl, but one we both have very different takes on this concept.

I did not say it could not, or should not, be considered... I only answered the original question regarding other facets of the game that may need to also be factored into the end decision.

The simplest solution for something like this would be to have damaging and healing effects simply restore/cause an equal damage amount to their spell level, before a save. The problem with that easy method arises with scaling spells such as magic missile which, while a 1st level spell, actually gets more powerful with character level. A quick example of what I mean:

Fireball is a 3rd level spell. It deals 3 Hits to all things in its area of effect, before a save. If the Castle Keeper decides to allow spell ladders, do a quick formulation of something like +1 Hit / 3-5 additional levels or whatever, making a 12th level caster hurling a fireball able to deal 3 + ((12-5)/3) = 5 Hits total before a save. This woulkd roughly equal the ordinary damage yet reduce the numbers and dice rolling significantly.

Healing spells may be somewhat more complicated, but a 5th level "cure critical" (or whatever level it is) would restore that fireball damage back easily enough at 5 Hits for being a 5th level spell...

So, really, there is not a tremendous amount of "work" to do... if you decide the basics of the change first, and then work through all the myriad sub-components that get attached to the idea of Hit Points.

I can foresee poison and disease being potentially annoying, but not that tricky in the end (X Hits over Y time), but more troublesome for me because I use more "authenticity" than the PHB rules allow.

[finarvyn]

Fireball is a 3rd level spell. It deals 3 Hits to all things in its area of effect, before a save. If the Castle Keeper decides to allow spell ladders, do a quick formulation of something like +1 Hit / 3-5 additional levels or whatever, making a 12th level caster hurling a fireball able to deal 3 + ((12-5)/3) = 5 Hits total before a save. This woulkd roughly equal the ordinary damage yet reduce the numbers and dice rolling significantly.

I was looking at my 3rd printing of the PH (I really need to upgrade ) and this looks a lot more complex than needed. I think my 3rd printing simply says 1d6 per level of the caster, which would translate into 1 "hit" per level of the caster. No complex equation here, and if there was I would do the math first and create a chart for ease of access during play.

I see the biggest problem as being the "before a save" thing. What do you do with "half hits" such as scoring 3 hits before a save. I think I'd want to add that to my chart, because at some levels that half-hit would round down. (For some spells it might be kind of compex becasue of dice conversion. I'd definitely run the numbers for common spells before play rather than waiting until an actual game session...)

[serleran]

The reason I would not use caster level = spell damage level is simple: nothing gets variable Hit Points. A creature with a HD of d12 is no different than one with a d4, assuming they have the same number of them. This is a critical difference in how HP operate -- the one with a d12 is, on average, going to be able to suffer more damage making the d12 an advantage; removing that also removes all reasons to have different HD types, which is yet another change with consequences (such as redoing XP progressions for character classes where HD is a large factor at initial levels.) This means that spell damage is boosted even further in the game, each "point" effectively being an entire HD of damage, regardless of type. That, for me, is somewhat of a problem -- a single fireball is not usually enough to drop a gaggle of giants, but you make it deal X for X and suddenly those giants are toast. Also, I would not use a "half hit." Round down, always.

And, we haven't even considered spell effects not comparable to their level, such as wall of fire which deals damage not based upon level but a relatively low amount. Or, spells such as shocking grasp which deal "plus damage" but not added dice, making determination of their "Hit effect" somewhat more complicated. Does every +3 or more deal +1 Hit (based on the assumption that the average of a d6 is 3.5)? Other types of spell effects worth thinking over are ones such as disintegrate which either kills or deals damage. Blade barrier becomes a damn nasty spell (it was already, but being able to virtually kill any 12 HD or lower monster outright... yeah) which is nice, I suppose, but perhaps overkill.

Dragons would simply kill everything using a 1:1 die:Hit; one breath and bye bye every other creature (or dang near it). Also, they would be more vulnerable, due to having far fewer Hits able to be taken. Either effect could be desirable.

One last thing, and this is probably for the best as it makes them "useful:" backstab turns hella mighty. A 1 Hit strike that suddenly turns into enough to kill an ogre makes the rogue and related classes more palatable. That can be a very good thing, though I would imagine that many Castle Keepers using the proposal would see players wanting to mix spellcaster into their character... perhaps fighter-wizard or whatever, because, again, HD variation is irrelevant and there is no longer that disadvantage (though the previous existing ones remain.)

Obviously a change like this, once fully implemented, reduces overall overhead. No rolling monster HP, and so forth, and speeds up game play due to removing rolling and counting loads of dice... but, if it were me, I would run mock up versions, and pay special attention at high(er) level. Due to the incremental revving of the spellcaster, I would then consider (and because HD no longer matters), giving all "warrior types" extra attacks at tiers.

In the end, as stated before, it can be done... there are just many little things to think over, especially relating to all things combat and magical.

[finarvyn]

The reason I would not use caster level = spell damage level is simple: nothing gets variable Hit Points. A creature with a HD of d12 is no different than one with a d4, assuming they have the same number of them. This is a critical difference in how HP operate -- the one with a d12 is, on average, going to be able to suffer more damage making the d12 an advantage; removing that also removes all reasons to have different HD types, which is yet another change with consequences (such as redoing XP progressions for character classes where HD is a large factor at initial levels.)

If you look at my earlier post (the one with the tiny table) you'll see that I address that varaible hit dice issue. A 3 HD creature with d4's would only have 2 hits while a 3 HD creature with d12's would have 6 hits.

This means that spell damage is boosted even further in the game, each "point" effectively being an entire HD of damage, regardless of type. That, for me, is somewhat of a problem -- a single fireball is not usually enough to drop a gaggle of giants, but you make it deal X for X and suddenly those giants are toast.

Again, it's the "regardless of type" part that troubles me and makes me think that we're not interpreting something the same. My explanations clearly differenciate different dice types.

Also, I would not use a "half hit." Round down, always.

Agreed. I was just stating that the half-hit issue had to be considered when working on this project.

[serleran]

Again, it's the "regardless of type" part that troubles me and makes me think that we're not interpreting something the same. My explanations clearly differenciate different dice types.

Yes, yours does. I was using a much simpler definition of Hits = number of HD, period. It is much better to allow difference in type, so that a d12 is superior to anything else, which your table clearly demonstrates. I would probably change it around some, but I always like doing that.

Sorry, we actually do agree, just describing things in different terms.

[finarvyn]

...which your table clearly demonstrates. I would probably change it around some, but I always like doing that.

Keep in mind that my table is done keeping the average dice scores the same, rather than trying to create one "by feel". If I tweak the table it would change the probabilities a little. That may not be a bad thing, you understand, but it would change class balance a little.

Sorry, we actually do agree, just describing things in different terms.

I figured as much; it was just a matter of making sure we each understood what the other was trying to say.