Monday, February 7, 2022

A Radical Proposal

I've lately been thinking about ability scores – the actual numbers associated with any given ability – and how they might be made to serve a more direct purpose in OD&D and games derivative of it. This has led me down some strange paths, some of which I'll probably start sharing over the coming weeks. For the moment, though, I want to present one of the more radical of them, pertaining to Constitution and the generation of hit points.

My idea, partly inspired by Basic Role-Playing, is that a newly generated character starts the campaign with a number of hit points equal to his Constitution score plus a fixed amount based on his class (the fixed amount is gained at every level, including first). This is obviously a huge change, since it would make 1st-level characters vastly more durable (even with a below average CON score) than standard OD&D characters. Over time, though, the numbers would even out, so that, by 6th or 7th level, the totals would be quite similar on average. To see what I mean, let's compare the average hit points of a Supplement I fighter and magic-user with 11 Constitution to their equivalents under this new system I've imagined.
This obviously represents a huge shift in thinking, not simply because of the increased durability of low to mid-level characters, but also because hit point increases are now fixed (+3 per level for formerly d8 hit dice, +2 per level for d6, and +1 per level for d4). This makes a high Constitution an extremely valuable asset, particularly at 1st level. On the other hand, hit points are kept much lower overall. Under Supplement I, a fighter with 18 Constitution and maximum rolls could have almost 100 hit points at 9th level, whereas, under this proposal, a fighter with the same CON would have less than half that. 

Naturally, for the proposal to work, there'd have to be a similar shift in the way that monster hit points were calculated, as well as possibly the damage ranges of weapons. Not having tested this, I don't yet have any way of knowing how this would play out or what sorts of unforeseen consequences might emerge from its adoption. At the moment, it's just an idle thought stemming from my desire to see the numerical scores of abilities in OD&D have more meaning beyond being an index on a chart. 

46 comments:

  1. 1) You look over every monsters and use the D20 SRD to come up with stats for every monsters. Then their hit points will be CON + a Hit Dice Factor in lieu of level. You are going down the Runequest route with this and at some point arrived in the same ballpark.

    2) You assume that monsters start out with a base of 10. Maybe up it a little to 15 for creatures like giants, and lower it a little to 5 for pixies. Then use a Hit Dice factor like character levels.

    Then you use this
    https://www.batintheattic.com/dnd_combat/

    To pit two combatant against each other and see where it takes you. It just a baseline to make number crunching easy.

    For example

    Alex is a 1st level Fighter, with a AC 4[15], longsword (1d*), CON 13, facing off with an Orc with AC 6[13], 1 HD, and a spear (1d6).

    Under OD&D rules. Alex rolled 6 hit points And the Orc rolled 4 hit point.

    If the two just whacked each other we see
    That Alex will win 72% of the time, with the average combat taking 2.5 rounds. 15% will end on the first round, and an additional 40% on the second round.

    If we go with your system where Alex has 16 HP (Con 13 + 3) and the Orc has say 10 + HD * 2 = 12 HP.

    Then we have Alex winning 82% of the time with the average combat taking 7 rounds, only nearly 4% of the fights ending on the 2nd round. And from the damage being dealt I guess all of those are Alex 2nd round kills of the orc.

    So if you change nothing else then low level combat will take 3 to 4 times longer to resolve than standard OD&D.

    I recommend adding a critical hit system to speed things up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's funny you should mention critical hits, because that's something I was considering, but I hadn't got very far in my thoughts on the matter. Thanks for the suggestion.

      Delete
    2. No problem, if you are unsure of something when you are further along, let me know and I code up a simulator you can use to see how thing shake out. Just keep in mind it just a starting point.

      I did several of these like this one I used to work on a Fudge based RPG.

      https://www.batintheattic.com/mwrpg/

      It should graphically what was becoming apparent with playtesting. That a +1 shift is a really big bonus with 4DF.

      Just give Alex +1 OCV and it will shift a 50-50 fight to a one where Alex wins around 72% of the time.

      With the D&D simulator +1 to hit give roughly a 5% bump to Alex winning. Which is expected given the use of the 1d20 roll.

      Incidentally you are generally better off with +1 damage than +1 AC or +1 to Hit. Alex having +1 to damage will take a 50-50 fight to 72% in Alex's favor.

      Delete
    3. This is much appreciated. I'll likely be in touch once I have a better handle on various details I'm still pondering. Thank you again.

      Delete
  2. I've been considering something similar lately, albeit for BECMI and using a slightly different formula: Half Constiution score (rounded up) + maximum class hit die result at 1st level, followed by unmodified half maximum class hit die per level thereafter. Using your examples, the Fighter would have 14 HP at 1st level, 30 HP at 5th level and 46 HP at 9th level. The MU would have 10/18/26. A significant boost at earlier levels that becomes more modest later on.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What you're suggesting is very close to 4E's approach to PC hit points, albeit with smaller numbers overall. You might take a look at that edition (or 13th Age, which is 4.5 in many ways) for further inspiration on how to tweak things.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Interesting. I reckon STR is the more natural (or at least *realistic*) stat to base hit points upon. All things being equal, it's harder to hack a prop forward to death than it is a marathon runner. The Fantasy Trip uses STR as hit points, which makes intuitive sense.

    In our Rules Cyclopedia campaign, we use HP as written, but then steal an idea from Into the Odd and have players make a saving throw (STR or under on a D20) to keep fighting once they hit zero HP. Any further damage comes off STR (temporarily). When the save is failed, the character is out of the fight. If STR reaches zero, the character is dead. It works well - and means that a strong first-level character is likely (but not certain) to last longer in a fight than a weak one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I could easily swap STR and CON for this purpose. Right now, I've been eyeing the use of the STR score to determine how many encumbrance points a character has, but CON might make just as much sense for that.

      Something else to ponder.

      Delete
    2. "The Fantasy Trip uses STR as hit points, which makes intuitive sense."

      TFT only has three stats, and none of them are Constitution anyway. Strength stands in for it there, just like TFT Int is both Wisdom and Intelligence and maybe part of Charisma (although that's a Talent in TFT).

      Delete
    3. Well, does Strength stand in for Constitution in TFT, or is it just a better stat to reflect hit points? I'd argue it's the latter. As above, who has more hit points in the real world - a prop forward or an endurance runner?

      And in the *unreal world*, an ogre surely has more hit points than a man because he's big and strong, not because he's a model of health and fitness.

      I'd say that TFT is just a more elegant design, and that CON is a fairly nebulous stat in the likes of D&D and RuneQuest. RuneQuest does a little better in using SIZ and CON together, but STR and SIZ would be a better pair.

      I wrote a bit about this a while back - before TFT was reissued:

      http://hobgoblinry.blogspot.com/2018/05/correlated-stats.html

      Delete
    4. There is a danger in overloading attributes.

      INT is overloaded in RQ1/2 which makes point buy not work well (everyone should take as high an INT as they can possibly afford).

      CON isn't necessarily endurance, though it stands in for it. But D&D has no endurance, so you'd head towards CON being a useless attribute.

      Rob - yea, combat simulators are great for looking at systems. I did a D&D one back in the 80s after playing with a Cold Iron one. It's amazing how little advantage is needed to shift a 50-50 to a 70-30 or more.

      Delete
  5. Bard Games used a similar system in their 1984 Atlantean Trilogy game, specifically the rulebook called, "The Arcanum."

    This was the system my group switched to when 2e started becoming a real mess. It features a host of character classes, and had three combat ratings: Untrained, Trained, and Highly Trained. According to their HP rules...

    "All characters, regardless of profession, start play with 1 hit point per each point of Constitution. To this total is added:

    • 2 HP (+2 HP per level of ability gained) for all untrained fighters such as spell casters, common folk, etc.

    • 4 HP (+4 HP per level of ability gained) for all trained fighters such as rogues, harlequins, corsairs, etc.

    • 6 HP (+6 HP per level of ability gained) for all highly trained fighters such as warriors, hunters, gladiators, etc. Monsters may be included in this category, though game Judges may alter their HP totals as desired.

    • Any applicable bonuses for having a high Constitution score (added once per each level of ability gained.

    Note: After 12th level, all characters gain only 1 HP per level (no Constitution bonuses after this time)."

    It was a fun system to play and run.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Arcanum system and the later Talislanta system are so very close to the system presented in the Arduin Grimoire (1978) that I would be amazed if the one hadn't somehow inspired the other.

      Delete
    2. The elements I remember being the most different from D&D were the combat sequence (there was an attack roll made against a target and the target made an immediate defense roll for each attack; only if the attack hit AND the defense missed was damage done to the target), and that one's armor value reduced damage by the same amount (so AV 5 took 5 points off each damage roll). A lot of dice rolling occurred, but the fights were super dynamic and a great defense roll could be just as exhilarating as a critical hit! :)

      Delete
    3. Talislanta shifted to a single attack roll system, but you compared the attacker and target's combat ratings as a modifier, making it very hard to land a serious hit on a superior fighter and relatively easy to score a punishing crit if you had an edge on the foe. Armor was still a flat damage reduction, as it arguably always should be.

      Delete
  6. While the CON+ model for hit points resolves volatility issues, it does not allow enough variation between classes; only a 2-hit point difference between your 1st level fighter and magic user. And, it lacks the thrill of dice rolling.

    A good compromise that resolves various issues is roll a die and if you get less than half then you take half. For example, a fighter rolls d8 that comes up three so he gets four; he (she) would just keep any five, six, seven or eight. Yes, this moves totals higher by setting a firm floor at the mid-point. But it also ensures real distinctions between character classes while keeping the thrill of dice rolling. Note, the magic user can’t roll more than four while the fighter can get less than four; ergo the fighter is rewarded with “assured” hit points in the same way that the magic user can count on spells.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the shallow variation between classes is a problem. I likewise concur about the thrill of dice rolling.

      More to ponder. Thanks!

      Delete
  7. I would suggest taking a page from Traveller and going the other way. Specifically, leave HP as is, except perhaps topping out at name level, but once HP are at zero, further damage is applied to ability scores. Additionally, critical hits bypass remaining HP and apply directly to ability scores.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's similar to what was done in the WotC Star Wars RPG, I believe.

      Delete
    2. Yes, at least the first edition thereof, I cannot say if the 'SAGA' version kept the same feel (I only ever owned the original d20 set).

      Delete
  8. I like hit points the way they are, IF you re-roll your hp with the acquisition of every new HD (as made explicit in Empire of the Petal Throne). This skews hp totals towards the average, and avoids the nonsense of a 5th-level fighter with 8 hp.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The EPT system works very well, if my campaign is any indication. But, as I said elsewhere, the issue isn't so much hit point inflation as it is my desire to give the numerical Constitution score some value in its own right.

      Delete
    2. Rather obvious suggestion here, but your numerical score for Con (and every other stat) have utility for d20 tests to accomplish things where the save mechanics aren't appropriate. Need to win a drinking contest? Roll d20 equal or under Con for success. Need to shake off the next day's hangover? Con test. Need to stay awake on watch after a hard day's march? Con test. If you want your PCs to get more heroic at that sort of thing as they level up subtract their level from the roll.

      Delete
  9. I love it. Solves the issue of too-fragile 1st level characters, and the HP arms race of 9th level characters, all at once.

    I'm not worried about 1st level MU HPs being too similar to those of Fighters. The MU's crummy AC will soon make short work of their HP.

    And players have plenty of opportunities to roll dice elsewhere. Besides, the current work-around, max HP at 1st level, deprives players of the chance to roll dice. But I've yet to hear one complain. :)



    ReplyDelete
  10. Do you currently use hit points as written? I think that "hit point inflation" has been the cause of many a problem over the years. A Fighting Man with 1d6+1 HP at level 1, and 1d6 per level thereafter, will end up with about 15 HP at 4th level. That seems reasonable to me... good for about 3-5 strikes before he falls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The issue in this particular case isn't so much hit points as the desire on my part to make the numerical Constitution score have some meaning.

      Delete
    2. What about the chance to "withstand adversity"?

      Delete
  11. It could work particularly well in a game based on the Black Hack rules, where damage is determined by class instead of weapon.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dave Hargrave did this in his Arduin campaign and published his system in Arduin Grimoire III: Runes of Doom (1978).

    Each character started with a number of Hit Points equal to their Constitution score, plus 1 hp per Con point above 12 (thus, 12 hp at 12 Con, 14 hp at 13 Con, and 24 at 18 Con).

    You then added a number of points based on your race, ranging from 10 hp (pixies) to 24 (ogres).

    Then you added 5 if a "fighter type," 3 if a "cleric type," and 0 if a "mage type."

    Then as you rose in levels you added more; 1 every level if a "fighter type," 1 every two levels if a "cleric type," and 1 every three levels if a "mage type."

    He also added a healing system that altered the "cure" spells so that they fit the new hit point system. Essentially, "cure light wounds" gave back 25% of max hit points; "cure serious wounds" gave back 50%; "cure critical wounds" 75%; and "heal" cured all wounds.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I've been, sometimes anyway, moving in something of the opposite direction, trying to make the actual numerical results of the dice rolls less meaningful and sticking to the broad categories; I'm inspired more by EPT in this than BRP/RQ. However, I keep running into the fact that the raw number is useful both for Charisma, which has a wide range of categories, and for Strength when using versions of encumbrance by stone.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Whew. I am very much of the opposite opinion on ability scores: I want the set of numbers that have been randomly generated on 3d6 in order at the start of an adventurer's career to matter as little as possible. To me, the scores are supposed to be a gentle nudge in the direction of picking a class that'll give you an XP bonus, and not much more than that.

    To that end, I don't mind at all when there aren't fine granular differences between each individual stat. Right at the moment, when I run D&D, I have each ability score table divided into bands (3–5, 6–8, 9–12, 13–15, and 16–18) where each tier does something small and specific. My Constitution table, for example, looks like this:

    Con 3–5: −10% to hit points, 4-in-6 chance to withstand adversity
    Con 6-8: no hp adjustment, 4-in-6 chance to withstand adversity
    Con 9–12: no hp adjustment, 5-in-6 chance to withstand adversity
    Con 13–15: no hp adjustment, will withstand adversity
    Con 16–18: +10% to hit points, will withstand adversity

    Since I never use d20 ability checks (again, because I'm philosophically opposed to hanging a major task resolution mechanic off of a set of scores that are going to be randomly generated once at the start of a character's life), the score itself hardly matters at all (except insofar as it tells you how far away you are from the next tier of adjustments if it happens to go up or down); and for all six ability scores, I have things set up so that having a very high (16–18) or very low (3–5) score doesn't just give you a bigger bonus or penalty, it gives you an equally small but entirely different bonus or penalty than you get from having a below average (6–8) or above average (13–15) score.

    As for the calculation of hit points, I switched to fix hps long ago. I just give all monsters a flat 4 hp/HD, and in the absence of a Con adjustment, PC hit points go—

    Fighter: 8 hp at 1st, 4 hp gained at 2nd–9th, +2 hp above 9th
    Cleric: 6 hp at 1st, 3 hp gained at 2nd–9th, +1 hp above 9th
    Mage: 4 hp at 1st, 2 hp gained at 2nd–9th, +1 hp above 9th
    etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the -10% is a penalty which would decrease the fighter's level 1 hit points from 8 to 7?

      Delete
    2. Yup. And it wouldn't impact a magic-user at all until they were at least 2nd level. By design.

      Delete
  15. Hargrave went that route in Arduin and that was adopted by WoTC in 4e and 5e - they credited him for that insight.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I have used this idea before. It worked out pretty well. If you do this make sure to adjust lower level damage dealing and healing spells appropriately or they lose effectiveness. If memory serves my quick fix was to simply add a die.

    ReplyDelete
  17. In a recent Moldvay D&D campaign, I simply gave every PC an extra 10 hit points.

    It made the PC's much less fragile at low level and preserved some level of difference in their hit points.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I give max hp at 1st level plus an extra 1d6, and any CON adjustments.

      Each subsequent level dwarves and fighters have at least 3hp, hobbits, elves and thieves at least 2hp and the MU at least one.

      Delete
  18. I'm fond of the idea of direct stat damage as well as using up HP. I haven't tested it much, but I've considered using Con (and other ability scores for other things) as a sort of HP reservoir beneath the actual HP, which is much harder to heal. Combined with the 'withstand adversity' suggestion above, you have a PC who can take their HP in damage before having a chance to faint or otherwise drop out of contention in a fight, and can use a check against that to stay fighting. When their constitution runs out, they're dead.

    To speed things up, I've also tried having characters and monsters roll a number of d20s equivalent to their OD&D (pre-greyhawk) hit dice each round for melee attacks, and applying any +1 or -1 to HD to the first of the d20 rolls. Doing this, I skip the to-hit table progression.

    It definitely makes combat faster, and single large monsters more dangerous. The constitution reserve gives a bit more survivability to balance it as well. The only downside is that it makes magic-users less effective from an offensive perspective -- a spell like magic missle is like throwing tiddlywinks when a 3rd level fighter can potentially dish out 3d6 or more damage a round.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Cold Iron (a 1980s home brew - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nyOzdxP8VZV2oSyKnxnS160WBRpC1Cd9fNfn2Va9VAI/edit?usp=sharing ) has another take on CON and hit points. It settles firmly into the accelerating hit points. Hit points are the higher of CON or (CON bonus + 5) * Fighter Level (which for most PCs amounts to rounddown(CON/2) * FL after 2nd level). Everyone has a fighter level, casters are splitting XP between fighter and caster.

    ReplyDelete
  20. First, to preface, I am going to say something that is probably controversial today: hit points for Player Characters and hit points for Monsters/NPCs do not have to be generated in the same fashion, nor even necessarily represent the same thing. Personally, I think the whole "PCs and Monsters must be generated in the same way for similar results" style that really took off with D&D 3E was a disastrous move. But hey, if it works for you, have fun.

    Anyhoo, for PC hit points, one way to take the sting off low hit points at low levels and allow for greater survivability, and yet not inflate hit points overall, is to add a "Timed Kicker." Hackmaster added the 20-point Kicker to hit points but added it to PCs and to monsters.

    The "Timed Kicker" is only for Player Characters, and only really works for so many levels. It works thusly:

    At 1st level, every Player Character starts with a number of hit points equal to their Constitution Score plus their highest Prime Requisite score (STR for Fighters, WIS for Clerics, INT for Magic-users, DEX for Thieves). This usually gives a base hit point total of somewhere between 20 and 30 (higher for 4d6, lower for 3d6).

    The player also rolls their hit points per hit die and Con as normal.

    They then use the greater of the two scores as their current hit point total. Once the rolled hit points exceed the score-based hit points, the rolled hit points become the character's hit points.

    So at low levels, they get a nice kicker, but nothing extreme. At higher levels their "experience, luck, and the favor of the gods" kicks in.

    What do monsters and NPCs get? Nothing! They are not generated in the same way as player characters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was about the suggest the same thing, but without adding the prime requisite score. Just use Constitution as the player character's hit points until the rolled hit point value exceeds it.

      Delete
    2. "Personally, I think the whole "PCs and Monsters must be generated in the same way for similar results" style that really took off with D&D 3E was a disastrous move. But hey, if it works for you, have fun."

      It has advantages and disadvantages as an approach, but it's significant that 4e threw the whole concept in the dumpster. Monsters in 4e follow their own rules and are designed to be easy and fun for a GM to use during combat, something that I wouldn't say is true in 3/3.5.

      5e has gone back down the 3.0 rabbit hole to a large degree, although things like lair and epic actions still help differentiate monster from players mechanically. OTOH there's been a real push toward "monster" being a dirty word for anything sapient, much less humanoid, which is misguided idiocy I don't care for in my RPGs, but WotC sure seems to be catering to it.

      Delete
    3. I certainly have a different view... Both of my favorite fantasy RPGs stat up NPCs (including "monsters") in the same way as PCs, though the generation may be different. This feature is one of the things I've always loved about RuneQuest. The 1980s home brew that I latched onto in college also works this way, though the NPCs tend to have fixed rather than random stats, of course many people use the fixed "average" NPCs in RQ, or generate one set that is used for all the trollkin in an encounter.

      That said, I think it's valuable to have some monsters that have mechanics that aren't available to PCs. That makes for special memorable encounters when that is an occasional thing.

      Delete
  21. In June you wrote:

    “In principle, I very much like the idea of randomly generated ability scores, preferably on the 3d6 in order model.
    One of the reasons I like random generation is that it offers a good chance that each character has at least one below average score, which I think lends just as much uniqueness to character as the abilities where he is above average.
    That said, if ability scores provide significant mechanical benefits, my fondness for the idea diminishes somewhat.”

    Would you consider using CON for HP a significant mechanical benefit or have you changed your stance?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe? I don't know. I'm mostly thinking out loud with these posts, but you raise a good question about my current stance nonetheless.

      Right now, I suppose I'm at a crossroads about ability scores. Either make them really matter (for a given definition of "really") or else abandon them entirely as an artifact of the hobby's infancy without much relevancy anymore.

      I continue to think about this and have no firm answers yet.

      Delete