Hit Points Abstraction

[Clovenhoof]

careful with the "just" on a critical.
First off, you need to rebalance the weapons if you treat criticals that way. The usual solution is to transform an increased multiplier (like x3) into increased threat range (19-20).
Note that with most martial weapons, you score a threat about 10% of the time. Make that 20% with improved crit / versatility and 30% with Greater Crit / versatiliy.
However, with a system emphasizing crits so much, most characters will go for weapons like the Scimitar that offer 18-20 threat range, for 15% / 30% / 45% threat chance respectively.

That's more than "just on a critical". And that's why I'd be very, very careful about allowing Crits to bypass Stamina and go straight into Life.

[In D&D 3E, there were even Keen weapons, whose double threat range stacked with other modifiers, so if we had these in Conan, you could have up to 60% threat chance with Keen Scimitar and Greater Crit.]

By the way: for our Conan round, I'm sticking with the HP system as it is.

 

[Soulmage]

I'm not sure you read the whole thing. . . or you might have missed some of the details.

However, with a system emphasizing crits so much, most characters will go for weapons like the Scimitar that offer 18-20 threat range, for 15% / 30% / 45% threat chance respectively.

Weapons with a threat range of more than 20 never inflict more than a x2 multiplier and generally have a low damage die.

This means that on a critical they are MUCH less likely to actually inflict a wound than a higher multiple weapon for a couple reasons:

1. Damage reduction will convert their damage to stamina loss instead. Unless they are able to inflict enough with their base damage to penetrate the opponent's DR, even on a critical they won't cause any actual wounds.

2. Weapons with higher crit multipliers gain bonus damage when inflicting wounds.

In other words, you will only be able to use a large threat range weapon effectively against opponents with little to no armor. . . as it should be. Against heavily armored opponents you are much better off using a weapon with a high base damage and high crit multiplier.

For the same reasons, you don't need to adjust the weapon stats.

 

[Soulmage]

I'm not saying you should use it, but it might be fun for your group to run a few sample combats and see how it alters the flavor/pacing of combat.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Right, I missed those lines about damage conversion.

Alright, if you use these rules that DR converts WP to VP loss, that does increase survivability.
But that returns us to the other problem: _everyone_ gets tougher. Unless you want to restrict armour to PCs and important NPCs. But what reason is there that the 100 mooks which the chief villain has at his command do not also possess DR6 or so?

So, no matter how you turn it and what mechanisms you come up with, it will always change the way the game is played. If you don't use the DR conversion system, everyone will go for critting weapons. If you do use it, everyone will go for the heaviest armour available.

- I believe there is a system where weapons get an armor piercing quality?

As you seem to be not familiar with it, every weapon has an AP score, which is added to the Str modifier, and if this total meets or exceeds the DR rating, only half the DR is deducted from the inflicted damage. Finesse fighters use a totally different system, which allows them to totally bypass DR if they roll high enough. That's it in a nutshell.

So with those Wound and damage conversion rules, combatants will place even higher value on armour-defeating weaponry.

Alright, gotta run now -- but we can discuss this later. ^^

 

[Soulmage]

Thanks for the info. I haven't done more than skim the Conan rules so I didn't know exactly how the AP works. (Waiting on 2E to buy them at this point.)

It may be that the system will need some tweaking once I get a chance to look at those and the finesse fighter rules in more detail. I had imagined that the AP value negated that much of the target's DR or something like that, and didn't realize a different system applied to finesse weapons altogether.

. . . but. . . . I agree 100% that it will change the way the game is played. That's partially the goal here.

For example - IMO somebody's weapon of choice should not be a rapier when they expect to be fighting armored opponents. The rapier was designed to be used against unarmored opponents, and is very effective under those circumstances. . . but you should use the appropriate tool for the appropriate job.

Another example - Generally speaking the better armored you are, the better off you are. The idea of the leaping and dancing fighter is strictly a fantasy concoction. Armor just kept getting heavier and more advanced until the invention of the firearm rendered even the heaviest armor capable of being produced at the time essentially moot.

My preference is for a more realistic role for armor in the game. Armor should be limited by price or rarity, and light armor should be preferable to heavy armor only when your task calls for it (scaling walls, or stealth, or sqeezing through tight spaces, or in proximity to large bodies of water, etc.) Again, back to choosing the right tool for the right job.

I don't think that this approach is in conflict with the established flavor given in the books. Conan's opponents are frequently decently armored and he frequently lacks armor because he was imprisoned, trying to sneak around somewhere, in an unsuitable environment like a jungle or a city where armor for the general public is frowned upon, or just flat out broke where it can be presumed that he sold it for more drinking money!

. . . but by and large people in Conan stories took advantage of better armor whenever the opportunity presented itself. Its just that the hero for the stories wasn't in that position very often.

 

[argo]

The basics sound good - I looked up the Vitality/Wound on the Hypertext d20 and am impressed. Im guessing this is a well recieved and established option?

Uh, actually it has fallen out of favor somewhat over the last couple years as the cracks in the system have become apparent. The flagship game for WP/VP was d20 Star Wars... and for the new Saga Edition out this year the designers have switched back to HP arguing that WP/VP didnt work out as well as they liked.

Has anyone out there used it for any length of time? I cant see a serious flaw at the moment but normally something pops up after using an alternate rule for a while.

There are a couple of serious flaws.

-Crits. Crits are random but a good crit can often drop you in one blow. This is supposed to be an advantage of the system, the fact that you can threaten a player at any time even with mooks. The problem is that by tying this threat strictly to crits it makes things too random. and Randomness tends to work against the PC's over the long run. Why? Because any given NPC will only be on "on screen" for a short ammount of time. But the PC's are always there. IOW over the course of a campaign the GM will roll against the players many more times than the players roll against the NPC's. This means that the odds are against the PC's. Play from 1-20 and you will virtually be guaranteed several completly random PC deaths.

-Threat ranges. Because crits are so incredibly important the game becomes a race for the crit and anything that helps that starts to come unbalanced. Because crits are the only way to bypass VP and go straight to WP combats become more of a game of luck waiting for someone to roll that nat 20.

-Random wierdness. As I mentioned in an earlier post on the last page you can't poision someone with a blowgun dart unless your roll WP damage. Re-balancing the weapon stats isn't as easy as it sounds (a 19-20 x2 weapon is balanced against a x3 crit weapon. However, in WP/VP leaving the sword with 19-20 threat and giving bonus damage to the axe favors the sword since threat range is so much more valuable in WP/VP).

-Armor. Since we have defined VP damage to be explicitly a "heroic near-miss" then logic dictates that Armor should not provide DR for your VP. After all if the blow never hit then how did your armor save you? Instead DR only should protect your WP (since that is when a blow actually, physically connects with you). This tends to make armor less valuable for PC's and other characters with VP since the drawbacks of wearing armor now will actually reduce your overall combat effectiveness.


Those are prety much the highlights. Is WP/VP a horrible system? No, it is actually quite playable and delivers much of what it promises. However I think the HP & Massive Damage system is much better. Having played with WP/VP for a while I was already starting to transition to Massive Damage before Conan came out and having played Conan for several years now I do feel that it holds up better than WP/VP. The MDT keeps the threat of "instant death" on the table but the PC's have less to fear from a random NPC crit because they have a Fort save to protect them, in the flip side the PC's now have more ways to inflict MDT on the enemy besides just waiting for a crit - any strategy that increases damage is effective so you get more diverse character builds than "I get the highest threat range possible". The list goes on.

Oh, and if you want to keep the "Stormtrooper effect" of WP/VP where mooks (who only get WP) go down quick, it is easy to do in Conan. Simply declare that your mook NPC's have only 20 HP regardless of their level. Go ahead, stat up a 6th level mook Soldier with the appropriate attack and defense values for his level but only 20 HP. Now throw 12 to 15 of his clones against your 9th level party. Hilarity ensues! 8)

Later.

 

[argo]

Another example - Generally speaking the better armored you are, the better off you are. The idea of the leaping and dancing fighter is strictly a fantasy concoction. Armor just kept getting heavier and more advanced until the invention of the firearm rendered even the heaviest armor capable of being produced at the time essentially moot.

But, generally speaking, WP/VP makes armor less valuable overall. :?

 

[Soulmage]

A very valid critique of the WP/VP system. Fortunately, my system addresses many of those concerns?

But, no system is perfect and everybody will have their own preference. I just presented the rudimentary idea for an alternative system in case some folks preferred a different approach.

 

[Clovenhoof]

The idea of the leaping and dancing fighter is strictly a fantasy concoction. Armor just kept getting heavier and more advanced until the invention of the firearm rendered even the heaviest armor capable of being produced at the time essentially moot.

I beg to differ.
Please bear with me as I try to set straight some common misconceptions.
Unarmoured, highly mobile fighting (not "leaping and dancing" but you know what I mean) has been a very successful style for many centuries, even against armoured opponents. Few know this because most people concentrate their research on the late middle ages.

What we should also examine is warfare in Roman times and the migration period. Most importantly the battles between Germans and Romans. Make no mistake about weapon quality then, both sides had outstanding weapons that were at least as good as those of the late middle ages, sometimes (in the migration era) even leagues better.

Germanic warriors disliked armour, as not to say despised it. They had helmets and shields, but no body armour. The shields were very light and designed only as missile defense. A shield would simply shatter from one solid blow with a melee weapon. The helmet did have protective value, but was also richly ornamented as a status symbol.

Basically what the Germans did to survive a fight was not to get hit. Both sides were comparable in numbers and quality of training, but while the Romans preferred a more solid, defensive fighting style, the German directive was speed, speed, speed.
Their swords (Spathae) were extremely light (around 2 lbs at 40" length) and could be wielded at great speed. Any kind of heavy (melee-suited) shield or armour would have bogged the warriors down and negated the speed advantage.

We can imagine it like this: in the beginning of a battle, spears and arrows were exchanged. These were blocked with shields. Once the armies closed in for melee, the shields were either discarded or, at best, taken into melee to absorb a single blow. With the shield gone, we can assume that the Germanic warrior would draw his Seax as off-hand weapon, since the broadswords were strictly one handed weapons (very short hilt) and having one hand free does not make sense. The style and construction of a period sword belt (with the Seax right next to the sword) supports this assumption.

So, it did also surprise me when I learned this, but these blokes were actually unarmoured dual wielders, to put it in game terms.

[aside: note, however, that those rectangular Roman Scutums we know from contemporary movies etc. were in reality extremely scarce, and sort of "special forces" equipment. Depicting an entire legion armed with these would be like a modern war movie about a full division of Delta Force. Most Roman legionaries had round shields just like there adversaries.]

We know the Germanic tactics was successful because the Romans were not. The Roman empire expanded thousands of miles until ocean or desert set an end to their expansion, except in the north, where the border was practically at their doorstep, despite various attempts of expansion. Which means that the German losses can't have been worse than the Roman casualties.

So much for Chapter One. But it goes on:

The reason why armour kept getting heavier lies not in any kind of melee weapon. For centuries, a mail shirt (which the Germanic peoples adopted only at the end of the migration period) provided adequate protection against all weapons of the era and way into the high middle ages -- not total protection, but the best compromise between protection and mobility.

Then up came: the Crossbow, introduced by returning crusaders in the 12th century. Suddenly, any peasant could operate a weapon that could fell a professional warrior (read: knight) with a single shot. This was an unbearable situation for the nobility. The only way to counter the new weapon was, you guessed it, heavy armour.

So there you have it, the late medieval arms race was actually initiated by the crossbow (not the longbow, no matter what the English might say). The light, fast swords that had been so successful for over a thousand years were suddenly not able to penetrate the new armour anymore. So the swords got heavier, and other armour-piercing weapons were designed (like those we know from the Conan game).
While the armour kept getting heavier and thicker, but before the advent of the firearm, the swords changed their appearance once again, following the example of other anti-armour weaponry: relatively slender, rigid, long blades for piercing came up, after the previous attempt to cut through armour with heavy blades proved to be a dead end. These new swords were sort of the father of the rapier.

For completeness sake, armour was eventually abandoned indeed due to its ineffectiveness against firearms. From that point on, the piercing blades did not have to be so rigid anymore, and so the lighter, flexible rapier developed.

So, we end this broadcast and return to our regularly scheduled program. With all that I just meant to say: unarmoured fighting is NOT a fantasy concoction, especially not in the context of early middle ages.

Note to self: since I banned crossbows from my game, I should probably also ban plate armour.

 

[Soulmage]

Hmmmm. . . do you have sources for that info?

I'm pretty sure that:

1. The romans successfully conquered the germanic tribes and things only started coming apart late in the roman empire when the primary soldiers were poorly trained and equipped auxilliarys recruited from the very tribes they conquered. The roman legions themselves dominated everybody they came across - ESPECIALLY - leaping and dancing barbarians!

2. Swords were never a PRIMARY weapon at any point in history (excluding the East Asian sword-obsessed cultures) until after the demise of armor. Swords were ALWAYS a backup weapon to a spear, axe, or mace, similarly to the way a pistol is a backup weapon to an assault rifle today. Once armor went away, swords became more practical.

3. Crossbows were around centuries before the invention of plate and eventually were built to penetrate even plate armor. A medieval crossbow was the next best thing to a firearm and actually were superior to the very early firearms due to cost, training, accuracy, and reload time factors.

I believe the crossbow was actually banned by one of the Popes in the 800s - 900s due to its terrifying a power. . . . long before the 1100s you mention. The 12th century may have been the re-introduction, but the weapon was around in Europe centuries prior.

 

[Soulmage]

I guess the short version of my reply is that. . .

EFFECTIVE "leaping and dancing" against a well armored opponent is basically a fantasy concoction. The tribes that practiced that fighting style, such as the Celts, were obliterated by the (true) Roman legions. . . not the later pretenders to the title.

That is why that style of fighting basically evaporated the more armor proliferated.

 

[Clovenhoof]

In response to your points:

Sources: I suppose I could look up a few, but most of the books I have are a) not in English and b) antiquarian.
Concerning swords: Menghin - Schwerter im frühen Mittelalter (Germanisches Nationalmuseum)
Concerning shields: Sieg und Triumpf. Der Norden im Schatten des Römischen Reiches (Danske Nationalmuseet)
Finally, I recommend Tacitus' "Germania" and maybe Caesar's "Gallic War", if you haven't read these. (note that these need to be taken with a grain of salt each)
Besides, a very good friend of mine is a historian and archaeologist who has dug up that stuff by the ton. He is actually my primary source of knowledge.

re 1.) simply not true. Please have a look at the Roman boundaries over the centuries. I believe there's an animated map somewhere on Wikipedia too. [edit: here we are: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Roman_Republic_Empire_map_edited.gif ]The Romans never made signifant headway beyond Rhine and Danube rivers, although they tried repeatedly to establish the Elbe river as new border. In the worst case, they lost tthree complete legions in a single battle. Effectively they had conquered maybe 10% of the Germanic tribes.

re 2.) so and so. It's true that swords were not a mainstay weapon, simply because they were so expensive. Also, the German Spatha was exclusively a cavalry weapon for a long time. But the gist of the text concerning armour also holds true for axes and spears (which also were very light).

re 3.) let me check on that. [...] Alright: crossbows were even used already by the Greek and then Romans, but obviously not in such significant quantities. The ban is really dated 1139 (second lateran council), just looked it up. I found no sources referring to significant use pre-1000. IIRC, the crossbow may have been used prior to the crusades as hunting weapon.

and as for your other post:
Celts are not Germans. Different time, different equipment, different style, most importantly different tactics. The Gaulic Wars were quite different from the situation in Germany more than a century later. But Gaul was pretty much the first Roman acquisition outside Italy [edit: not quite], completed around 50BC. The Empire was at its peak roughly 100-200AD, and even during that time, they did not manage any decisive victory versus the - unarmoured - Germans (who btw strongly emphasised cavalry) and no real permanent headway into their territory, while the Empire at the same time extended even beyond the Black Sea.

As a matter of fact -- at least that's how my friend explained it to me -- one major reason for the German tribes' success was that they adapted to Roman tactics very fast, which all the other countries Rome conquered had not managed. But that's something beyond the topic of this thread, I'd say.

EDIT:

Back to the original topic: I just read a post on the GamingReport thread linked above that introduces a very nice solution:

When someone runs out of hit points, they no longer go to negative but all addtional damage reduces your CON. Normaly this would mean that you would be taking additional hit point lose as you lose your bonus hit points, but in this system once your hit point hit zero they cannot be reduced any lower. Once you are at 0 CON you are dead.

I think I may give this a shot. It is so simple, it looks just beautiful.
The Diehard feat would have to be rewritten, though.

 

[Axerules]

re 3.) let me check on that. [...] Alright: crossbows were even used already by the Greek and then Romans, but obviously not in such significant quantities. The ban is really dated 1139 (second lateran council), just looked it up. I found no sources referring to significant use pre-1000. IIRC, the crossbow may have been used prior to the crusades as hunting weapon.

Sun tzu, in the Art of War, talked of the use of arbalesters during battles. Obviously it is important only in China, but it's really older than 1000 AD.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Uh yeah I really meant "in Europe", since China is a totally different development.

 

[Oly]

EFFECTIVE "leaping and dancing" against a well armored opponent is basically a fantasy concoction. The tribes that practiced that fighting style, such as the Celts, were obliterated by the (true) Roman legions. . . not the later pretenders to the title.

Boudica's revolt is probably a very good example of what people percieve as being the Celts.

On the one hand she defeated the Legio VIIII Hispana.

On the other her army was destroyed by the Legio XIIII Gemina (well mainly them).

It wasn't the fighting style or armour of the individual warriors that lead to their defeat (though they did contribute) but rather the superior discipline and tactics of the Romans.

If you could manage to get around those tactics and break their morale or discipline then the "leaping and dancing" (cough) Celts could and would defeat the "well armoured" Romans. The armour alone wasn't the deciding factor.

 

[Soulmage]

I was aware the Celts aren't German. . . just offering another example. :wink:

Be that as it may. . . given the choice between the two fighting styles. . . I would MUCH rather go into combat with at least a medium level of armor, rather than naked w/ a sword. Wouldn't you?

Con Damage:
The problems with the Con damage I see are several:

1. Taking constitution damage causes a lot of other adjustments to have to be made to your saves/abilities. My system is similar to the constitution damage, but without the bookkeeping.

2. Does nothing to address the everybody gets tougher approach.

3. Still requires the massive damage save to preserve any kind of instant-incapacitation ability. If you're going to stick with a massive damage save, you might as well stick with hit points.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Personally, I'd feel a lot safer with a chain shirt or something, but it has to be light. ^_^

Concerning Con damage:

1. is it a lot? If you rule that HP can't drop to negatives, I can only think of the Fort save. And -1 Fort for every -2 Con is not that difficult to keep track of, I think.
However, since ability points recover so super fast in Conan, it would only make sense if you ruled that this kind of Con damage takes much longer to heal. Otherwise, it's no difference between taking 3 days to heal and 3 days, 4 hours to heal.

2. You still gain HP by level as normal and your Con also increases, however more slowly.

3. Yes, MDS remains in effect. You might rule that a failed save drops you to 0HP, robs half your Con and renders you unconscious and dying, unless you have the Diehard feat, in which case you'd be disabled.
(Good thing you reminded me of that, so I could quickly shake a rule for that out of my sleeve)

I know that this simple rule change doesn't address all the problems and shortcomings of the HP system, but that would be asking a bit much. I still think it may be worth a try.