Healing and Psychic Damage

Sorry for the lack of posting. I've been working on some other projects including my master's, getting another blog running, planning a hunting trip, and so on. And while I have lots of ideas floating around for an RPG, I am not sure when I will be able to play again.

But here's some quick food for thought.

I was watching a Band of Brothers episode on DVD the other day, "The Breaking Point." The drama centers on a young medic -- Roe -- from Louisiana who has a knack for healing. In many ways you might call him a modern paladin -- there are certainly allusions to the laying on of hands. Here's a discussion between Roe and one of his fellow soldiers about the somewhat mystical aspects of healing in his family.

Spina: "Hey, what do you call those people again? Those Cajun healers?"
Roe: "Traiteurs."
Roe: "You know, my grandma was a traiteuse."
Spina: "Your grandmother? No shit?"
Roe: "No, she was. Laid her hands on people and cured them. Took away sickness, cancer, you name it."
Spina: "Your grandma did that? You're shitting me."
Roe: "I remember she used to pray a lot."
Spina: "Yeah, I guess she had to."
Roe: "Talked to God about the pain she pulled out. Asked him to carry it away."
Roe: "That's what she did."

Roe also has a discussion with a French nurse:

Renée: "What?"
Roe: "You hands."
Renée: "My hands?"
Roe: "You're a good nurse."
Renée: "No. I never want to treat another wounded man again. I'd rather work in a butcher's shop."
Roe: "But your touch calms people. That's a gift from God."
Renée: "No, it's not a gift. God would never give such a painful thing."
Anonymous soldier: "Nurse! Nurse! We need some help over here!"
Anonymous soldier: "Got shrapnel through the stomach."
Renée: "How bad is it? Okay, get this one in first."

Another example of this sort of healing from fiction would be John Coffee in the Green Mile .

GAME SYSTEM APPLICATION

Anyways, I thought both were potentially good examples for how healing could work in any sort of gaming system or genre. The characters by laying on of hands can remove another's physical wounds -- but only at the cost of incurring their own psychic trauma. Clearly the laying on of hands is painful, something that can be borne only with great faith or innate goodness.

For example, say you have HP for physical damage and a Cthulu-style insanity meter. A healer could lay on hands (perhaps with minor first aid supplies to increase the chance of success) but risks incurring some sort of damage to their sanity. In WOD, perhaps healing physical damage costs sanity or willpower.

I can see this system working the other way too. Maybe psychic damage could be relieved by incurring a stigmata, exhaustion/fatigue or other physical damage. An example might be a priest doing an exorcism to heal a victim infested by a malign spirit: the victim's psychic wounds will be alleviated but the priest may be fatigued or even bodily injured in the attempt.

GAME DESIGN

From a game design point of view such trades cannot be "frictionless" at 1:1. Otherwise players will use it all the time. There should be some degree of loss or friction. Perhaps relieving one physical wound risks losing two mental points, for example. Here's an example in play:

Maximus the warrior has sustained grievous injuries. He hopes that Percival the Paladin can help him. Percival attempts to do so, with standard odds of success (perhaps 1/3 if untrained, 2/3 if trained, bonus for using equipment?). If he is succesful, then Maximus regains 1 wound point (whatever that is in your system).

Regardless of success, Percival must make a resistance check to prevent being overwhelmed by the horror. Again, the odds of success are 1/3 and 2/3 for untrained/trained respectively.

There are four outcomes. Let's assume Percy is an awesome healer and trained in both:

Maximus Healed / Percy Unscathed: 44%
Maximus Not Healed / Percy Unscathed: 22%
Maximus Healed / Percy Traumatized: 22%
Maximus Not Healed / Percy Traumatized: 12%

On average, Maximus regains .66 HP and Percy takes .33 damage.

This system clearly does not have enough friction. Players will be gaming it all the time to convert damage willy-nilly. There are several possible fixes:

• Arbitrarily limit the number of times per day this can occur
• Increase Percy's risk to be 2 x the amount healed (this creates an exactly equivalent exchange)
• Increase Percy's risk to be 3 x the amount healed (this creates inefficiency)
• Require Percy to expend one sanity point right up front, no save, to even make the attempt (this also creates efficiency, and makes it less likely that people who suck at healing will even try -- may be good, may be bad)

Anyways, just a sketch of a thought!

Resources, Damages, and Scales of Play

Earlier I've talked about various scales of play and how to move between them. One thing that becomes obvious when considering this is that you need to have different resources at each level of play.

Let's jump to an example. In older D&D, the primary character resource is the Hit Point. This resource is primarily depleted on a round-by-round basis, and its fully restored theoretically on a weekly or monthly basis (1 point per day with rest), but practically restored in a day or two (using clerical magic -- a down day where the cleric packs a bunch of healing spells will take care of most seriously wounded parties). The other resource is the Spell Slot, and this is also restored on a daily basis.

This works pretty well; by the mid-levels a party often has enough endurance for a few encounters denominated in rounds and then their daily resources are done. It has some major implications in the end game, however. For example, Delta has pointed out many times that the end game in D&D doesn't work. This is because an attack in one round that does 1d6 damage will do 10d6 damage over 10 rounds; and if the figure making said attack over 10 rounds consists of 20 orcs, then it will do 200d6 damage.

The HP transitions equally poorly for other purposes as well. For example, take forced marching in AD&D. Dealing some HP damage as a consequence of forced marching is meaningless as HP were restored every day. What's the point of incurring some damage for a long day's march if its just restored again in a day anyways? So, in AD&D the rule for forced marching incurs a loss of HD and it will take several days to fully recover. Other events start to pick up longer recovery times on the order of a magnitude as well: recovering after being in negative HP, the time it takes for a high level caster to fully recover all expended spells (add it up; its longer than you might think), ability score damage, and so on.

All this points, IMHO, to the need for different resources at different levels of scales. For example, I could just use HP at the segment level and then multiply all damage done by 10 for events played out on the round level and 100 for events played out on the turn level. But this leads to "no heroes in war."

WOTC realized this, at least in part, with the advent of Healing Surges in 4E. This mechanic works well on at least two levels of scale: HP continue to be used for things where the recovery time is measured in about a turn (the "short rest" of a few minutes), and Healing Surges are used for things where the recovery takes a day ("the long rest" overnight). Healing Surge loss could be used for quickly abstracting an entire situation (for example; "You have a boring random encounter and lose one healing surge; the environment is very hot and you all lose a healing surge. We all move on with our lives.") operating on the turns or even maybe hours level. I could see it working well for mass combat, where a formation of orcs attacking a hero might result int he loss of a healing surge or two rather than the massive (and lethal)loss of HP that would otherwise result.

It still doesn't work well for events occurring on the "many hours" level for things like forced marching as they're all recovered overnight. After this was exploited many times in skill challenges, our DM implemented a house rule of "resistant healing surge" loss which persisted for a longer period of of time or until several milestones were reached.

White Wolf also realized this with the use of three different types of wounds: bashing damage recovers in a few minutes, lethal damage takes days, and aggravated takes much longer. Additionally, there is a Willpower resource, which is recovered bit by bit on a daily basis but requires around a week to top off from empty.

So, my bottom line is that you need to consider having more than just one consumable resource if you want to be able to move between scales of play.

I've got more thoughts but for now this has turned out to be a fairly robust post, so more to come later.

"I feel better!" -- Full up on HP

One thing that has longed bugged me about D&D style attrition based HP systems is the relative ease at which it is to get to full-up status. I.E., it bugs me that characters go from the brink of death to hale and hearty very quickly. Of course, players always want to be at 100%. It maximizes stamina in combat and odds of success. However, making such top-off healing easy does much to remove the gritty wearing of a long day, and it removes strategic choices from the players.

In 1E, clerics get enough bonus spells even at level 1 that taking a day or two off from adventuring is enough to slap Cure Light Wounds (CLW) onto everyone (a 5 hour break should be enough to rest and memorize up 3 x CLWs...) and get everyone topped off. It is rough only if you have very limited downtime, which causes problems for low level parties in many ways in any event.

In addition, once you hit level 7, scrolls of CLW start to proliferate like toilet paper. Potions are soon to follow. This problem is even worse in 3.5, where the Infamous Wand of Cure Light Wounds (or Lesser Vigor) is the FIRST item any party pools money to buy. 50 charges for 750 GP -- a bargain to ensure that everyone is topped off!

This problem is mitigated in OD&D as level 1 clerics have no spells. Plus, its mitigated by the lack of bonus cure spells. That brings its own issues though in that more downtime is basically mandated.

In 4E, healing surges are often anticlimactic. After a fight, folks do some math, cross off the healing surges, and are magically at 75-100% again. There is a little bit of a choice if above 75% but below 100%; do you "waste" some of the spilled over HP from a surge or risk being at less than 100%? Other than that, there's no real thought involved. Once people are out of surges, the day is over. It only gets exciting once at least some members of the party get very low on surges and start entering fights at <100%.

Here's a few ideas I have to make it a bit harder to be "topped off."

REAL WOUNDS/VIGOR WOUNDS

Several systems have a HP model where some damage is physical and some is only metaphysical. For example, in a hypotehtical example, say a fighter has HP equal to their CON score + vigor points equal to 1d10 x level. Vigor points are easy to restore but HP are hard and slow. Damage comes off the vigor points first. Thus, after a bruising near-death experience, the fighter can top off their vigor points but will still bear the scars of the physical wounds for some time.

In 4E, you could do this by saying that healing surges may only be spent to bring you up to your bloodied value, AND letting a player burn surges to gain temp HP equal to their surge value (perhaps in some ratio -- say, burn 3 surges, gain temp HP equal to 2 surges that persist until used up but do not stack). Only with daily magic powers or consumables can you recover HP above your bloodied value.

INCREASING DIFFICULTY OF HEALING

You could also increase the "cost" to heal up the top 10-50% of a character's HP pool. For example, maybe once you get above a certain cutoff, every HP healed "costs" 2 HP of healing. So, if you're trying to top off, that Cure Light Wounds spell that would have healed 8 HP only heals 4 HP. This could also be done with random chance to decrease granularity. Perhaps a healing spell only takes hold if you roll equal to or under the current HP status on a D100 (so if you are at 80% HP, 80% of healing spells used on you fail).


Am I the only one that is bugged by this? Anyways, just some brainstorming.

WOUNDS: Variable Weapon Damage

This is a mini-research project to see how quickly monsters die, at relatively low levels when damage output is pretty stable.

AD&D:
Low damage weapon: Dagger (2.5)
Mid damage weapon: Longsword (4.5/6.5)
High damage weapon: 2H Sword (5.5/10.5)

TIER 0 MONSTER: Goblin (1-1 HD - 3.5 HP)
- Survives 1.4 hits against the dagger
- Survives 0.77 hits against the longsword
- Survives 0.64 hits against the zweihander

TIER 1 MONSTER: Hobgoblin (1+1 HD - 5.5 HP)
- Survives 2.2 hits against the dagger
- Survives 1.22 hits against the longsword
- Survives 1 hits against the zweihander

TIER 2 MONSTER: Ogre (4 HD - 18 HP)
- Survives 7.2 / 9 hits against the dagger
- Survives 4 /2.77 hits against the longsword
- Survives 3.27 / 1.7 hits against the zweihander

S&W WB:
Low damage weapon: Dagger (2.5)
Mid damage weapon: Longsword (3.5)
High damage weapon: Halberd (4.5)

TIER 0 MONSTER: Goblin (1-1 HD - 2.5 HP)
- Survives 1 hits against the dagger
- Survives 0.71 hits against the longsword
- Survives 0.55 hits against the zweihander

TIER 1 MONSTER: Hobgoblin (1+1 HD - 4.5 HP)
- Survives 1.8 hits against the dagger
- Survives 1.29 hits against the longsword
- Survives 1 hits against the zweihander

TIER 2 MONSTER: Ogre (4+1 HD - 15 HP)
- Survives 6 hits against the dagger
- Survives 4.29 hits against the longsword
- Survives 3.33 hits against the zweihander


CONCLUSIONS

Before you take into account the massive damage escalation from special damage vs. large critters, two handed weapons end up killing monsters almost twice as fast as low-damage light weapons. One handed weapons fill in towards the middle.

A monster of a tier lower than you can be reliably one-shotted by your weakest weapon. A monster of a tier equal to you can be reliably one-shotted by your strongest weapon. And a monster of the tier higher than you won't be one shotted at all.

That's about all I want to do right now, as I'm a bit loopy on mefloquin + sleeping pills. :)

WOUNDS VI: A sample TN 7 fight

One of my readers pointed out to me that TN 7 fights seem suicidal. And indeed -- they are, to some degree. A level 2 character that has faced down a hill giant will get splattered most of the time. I want to see how such an encounter might play out, though.

So, we have four heroes facing a tier +2 challenge (say, a Giant). We'll assume that there are really no tactics involved -- they're just hacking away at each other with their most effective blows, which have about a 50-70% chance of connecting. So let's just say its a 2/3 chance to connect. The giant will try and take out one hero at a time and then move on.

Hero A is a 1-die pool hero for resisting wounds. B has 2 dice, C has 3 dice, and D has 4 dice.

ROUND 1

The giant swings at Hero A. If he connects (2/3), he forces the hero to make a save (0%) to pass. HERO A -1 Health Level (HL).

The heroes swing back at the giant. They have a 2/3 chance to hit, and if they do, the Giant needs to make a TN 3 save. Its only 3 because they're such lower level. He gets two dice because he's a tough mofo. That means that each attack has a 12% * 2/3 = 8% to knock one of the giant's health levels off.
HERO A: -.08
HERO B: -.08
HERO C: -.08
HERO D: -.08

We end round 1 with HERO A -2/3 of a HL, GIANT -0.32 HL.

ROUND 2: Repeat. HERO A is bloodied, down -1 and 1/3 HLs. The giant is now down -0.64 HLs.

ROUND 3: Repeat. HERO A is possibly disabled, down -6/3 HLs. The giant is most likely bloodied, though (-0.96).

ROUND 4: Repeat. HERO A is almost certainly disabled, on the verge of a KO, down -8/3 HLs. The giant is almost certianly bloodied (-1.28).

ROUND 5: Repeat. HERO A is probably out. He's down -10/3, which KOs him (-10/3 = -3.33). Let's say he gets in a parting shot, though, so the giant is -1.60 HLs now. From now on, only three heroes are fighting the giant, so he'll only lose 0.24 HLs each round.

ROUND 6: The giant moves on to smash HERO B now. Hero B is more resilient; if the giant connects (2/3 chance), then he'll lose a HL 97% of the time instead of 100% of the time. So, each swing from the giant removes 0.65 HLs. We end the round with HERO A KOd, HERO B at -0.65, and the GIANT at -1.84 HLs.

ROUND 7: Repeat. HERO B is likely bloodied at -1.3 and the giant is probably disabled at -2.08.

ROUND 8: Repeat. HERO B is flirting with being disabled at -1.95. The giant is seriously injured at -2.32 HLs.

ROUND 9: Repeat. HERO B is almost KOd, at -2.6. The giant is hurting too, at -2.56.

ROUND 10: Repeat. HERO B is likely KOd, at -3.25. He gets in his parting shot though and the giant is at -2.8 HLs.

ROUND 11: The giant now moves on to HERO C. HERO C is yet more resilient, and if he his hit (2/3 chance), he will lose a health level only 92.6% of the time; so every swing from the giant costs him 0.62 HLs. The heroes meanwhile are only inflicting -0.16 on the giant.

By the end of the round, HERO C is at -0.62, and the giant is just about KOd at -2.96.

ROUND 12: The giant takes one more swing! HERO C is dropped to -1.24, and then the two heroes polish off the fearsome giant.

FINAL TALLY:
HERO A: KOd
HERO B: KOd
HERO C: Bloodied
HERO D: Untouched
GIANT: KOd

This seems grindsome, and it is to some degree intentional (it removes the whiff, whiff, splat of straight HP based combat). However, there are two important factors missing here:
1) Disabled characters will be less effective, i.e., more likely to miss. That means less dice rolling for potential wounds. It also means that characters are more likely to break off or back down.
2) Morale. Most creatures would check morale when they become disabled. That means the Giant might have fled or surrendered in Round 7, not Round 12. The PCs might have checked morale too and fled or used consumables to stay in the fight!


ADDENDUM: How would this have played out in AD&D?

In this case we have a party of level 2 characters facing a hill giant. Let's say 2 x fighters, a cleric, and a magic-user.

HERO A: Magic-User (HP 5, AC 8 from Dex or Spell)
HERO B: Fighter with chain mail and two-handed sword, 18/01 STR, 16 CON (HP 15, AC 5)
HERO C: Cleric with mace, chain mail, and shield (HP 9, AC 4)
HERO D: Fighter with long sword and shield and plate mail, 18/01 STR, 16 CON (HP 15, AC 2)
HILL GIANT: AC 4, HD 8+1, HP 37
I'm using the optional THAC0 rule that gives our fighters +1 at level 2.

ROUND 1: The giant -- as any good monster -- tries to kill the pointy-hat first. He chucks a rock which does 7.65 HP damage (0.85 * 9). The mage is splattered, but likely not before he unleashes his spell, magic missile for 3.5 HP to the giant. HERO B deals 4.725 (0.35 * 13.5) HP. HERO C deals 0.875 (0.25 * 3.5), and HERO D deals 3.325 (0.35 x 9.5).

Tally: HERO A squished, Giant - 12.425

ROUND 2: The giant turns his attention to HERO B, the next squishiest but highest damage producing character. He deals 6.3 HP (0.7 x 9) to the Fighter. Heroes B, C, and D then repeat their performance of the last round.

Tally: HERO B -6.3, Giant - 21.35

ROUND 3: Repeat. HERO B - 12.6, Giant - 30.275

Round 4: Repeat. HERO C - SLAIN. GIANT - SLAIN.

Final Tally:
HERO A: Squished
HERO B: Squished
HERO C: Untouched
HERO D: Untouched
GIANT: Slain

Running this with a 9 HD giant like a fire giant might be closer. Of interest, the final outcome was about the same. What was different was the speed of resolution. This took only 4 rounds instead of 12. Much of that is because AD&D characters are eggshells. That is, the giant either misses or it kills them outright in one or two hits.

ADDENDUM 2: How would this have played out in S&W WB?

HERO A: Magic-User (HP 4.5, AC 10)
HERO B: Fighter with chain mail and two-handed sword (house rule -- gives +2 damage) (HP 7, AC 14)
HERO C: Cleric with mace, chain mail, and shield (HP 7, AC 15)
HERO D: Fighter with long sword and shield and plate mail (HP 7, AC 17)
HILL GIANT: AC 15, HD 8+2, HP 30

ROUND 1: The giant goes for the pointy-hat. He deals 6.65 (0.95 * 7) HP to the wizard, squishing him instantly. The wizard gets off a Pro Chaos spell for HERO B. HEROES B, C, and D lay into the giant. B deals 1.925 (0.35 * 5.5), C deals 1.05 (0.3 * 3.5), and D deals 1.225 (0.35 * 3.5), dropping the Giant by -4.2 HP.

ROUND 2: The giant starts in our HERO B, now. He deals 4.9 (0.7 * 7). The three heroes drop the GIANT to -8.4.

ROUND 3: The giant kills off HERO B. The three heroes drop the giant to -12.6.

ROUND 4: The giant now starts in on HERO C, the cleric. He deals 4.9 (0.7 * 7). The two remaining heroes deal 2.275, dropping the giant to -14.875.

ROUND 5: The giant finishes off the cleric, and he is dropped himself to -17.15

ROUND 6: The remaining fighter gulps, steels himself, and continues his attack. The giant deals 4.2 HP (0.6 * 7), and the fighter dishes out another 1.225, bringing the giant down to 18.3775.

ROUND 7: The giant smushes the fighter, but not before the hero gets in one last blow, bringing the giant down to -19.6.

FINAL TALLY:

HERO A, B, C, & D: Smushed
GIANT 10/30 HP

Intesting. This, to me, points to the necessity of giving fighters some sort of bonus to hit and/or damage (whether it be their STR bonus or something) in OD&D if you want to maintain parity with other editions.

WOUNDS V: Durability Categories

I whipped up this chart to explain some thoughts I had about wound mechanics when I was jogging today. This chart represents the relationship between what in D&D we term as "AC" and "HP."

AC: Broadly interpreted, this is the chance to be struck. If you have a high or strong AC, you are not likely to be struck. If you have a low or weak AC, it is very likely that incoming attacks will connect.
HP: This is your durability or how many hits you can take. This either could be an absolute number in a traditional D&D sense or a percentage chance to lose a wound level.

By varying those two factors, you can control the overall durability of a character. Note that both factors are relative to the opposition.

Barbarian		HIGH HP	Tank
LOW AC				HIGH AC
Squishy			Eggshell
		LOW HP

The TANK has high AC and high HP. He is unlikely to be struck and even if he is struck he can take many blows. This is good for personal survivability, but it can be bad because enemies tend to ignore tanks unless they have a very good reason not to. In too many 1E games, the fighter who is supposed to protect the others is just ignored because he is too hard to kill. Mid level fighters are Tanks because they tend to have excellent defenses and HP pools.

The BARBARIAN has poor AC and many HP. He is easy to hit but can eat a lot of punishment. High level fighters can become Barbarians because the monster's chances of hitting increase faster than the fighter's defenses do. Monsters with multiple attacks are particularly effective against barbarians (claw/claw/bite, for example).

The EGGSHELL has strong AC like a tank but no HP to back it up. Hence, once something penetrates the shell, things get messy really quick. Eggshells can lead to swingy combats. Low level OD&D fighters are Eggshells because they are tough to hit in the first place but can still be one-shotted. Highly buffed clerics can also be eggshells; their defenses are supernaturally high but they still have limited HP.

The SQUISHY is in a bad place. Squishies have weak AC and poor HP. They are likely to die quickly if attacked. Magic Users are traditionally Squishy.

So, interestingly, OD&D fighters go through a life cycle of almost all the types. They begin their careers as Eggshells. They then transition into Tanks in the "sweet spot" mid-game. Finally, towards the end, they become barbarians because their defenses don't scale adequetely with level.


PASSING JUDGEMENT

Are some of the types better than others from a design standpoint? I think so. I think the Eggshell is a poor design for a PC. Eggshells lead to swingy combats where the character quickly goes from "just fine" to "bleeding out." Usually, only bigger monsters have a chance to penetrate the eggshell's defenses, but bigger monsters also tend to do more damage which is likely to one-shot the eggshell. The Squishy is in a bad place too, but at least the Squishy knows that he/she is not melee capable and steers clear of danger whenver possible.

Others must agree with me. For example, Gary gave his players extra HD in OD&D games at low levels to get past the Eggshell phase quickly. I think its a common house rule to give characters their level 2 HD at first level or to give them a HP kicker of some sorts. This was implicit in 4E's design philosophy and Hackmaster features it as well.

WOUNDS IV: An OD&D Analysis (Based on S&W WB)

I'm going to do a bit of basic research in this post to examine how wounds stack up in S&W (focus on the WHITE BOX) edition. The question is, "How many hits can an average character take as a function of level?"

As you may be aware, I believe that there are implictily several "tiers of play." For sake of this exercise, I'll break them up into these categories:
Low levels: 1-4 HD
Medium levels: 5-8 HD
High levels: 9-12 HD
Very High levels: 13+ HD

First we need to define our "average" characters.

The FIGHTER is in plate mail and bearing a shield (AC 17) with +1 HP/HD.
The CLERIC is in chain mail with a shield (AC 15).
The MAGIC USER is nekked except for minor spells (AC 11).

At low levels, all arms and armor are normally mundane and spells are rare. By medium levels, we can expect +1 gear to have shown up. By high levels, +2 gear at a minimum is standard. At very high levels, +3 gear is out and about. Magic-users normally don't benefit from magic arms & armor, but let us assume that their defenses likewise improve at higher levels as well due to availability of spells and such.

Additionally, at higher levels, protective magics are highly likely to be increasingly available, even if it is just a simple Protection from Evil spell. Thus, at mid levels, we'll assess another +1 bonus and at high levels an additional +2 bonus.

So, that gives us this little chart:
LOW LEVELS: +1 (+1 armor OR +1 spells)
MID LEVELS: +2 (+1 armor/+1 spells)
HIGH LEVELS: +3 (+2 armor/+1 spells)
VERY HIGH LEVELS: +4 (+3 armor/+1 spells)

We can now define the AC and HP of an average character of pretty much any level.

FIGHTING MEN
LOW LEVELS (say, level 2): AC 18, HP 9
MID LEVELS (level 6): AC 19, HP 26
HIGH LEVELS (level 10): AC 20, HP 45
VERY HIGH LEVELS (level 14): AC 21, HP 63

For clerics, just subtract -2 from the AC figures and -1/level. So:

CLERICS
LOW LEVELS (say, level 2): AC 16, HP 7
MID LEVELS (level 6): AC 17, HP 20
HIGH LEVELS (level 10): AC 18, HP 35
VERY HIGH LEVELS (level 14): AC 19, HP 49




Now for "average" monsters.

Monsters get +1 to hit for every HD.

They tend to deal 1d6 damage base.

Monsters at mid-to-high levels deal 2d6 damage (Djinn, 7 HD; Efreeti, 10 HD; Elementals, 8/12/16 HD; Giants, 8-12 HD; Giant Slugs, 12 HD; Treants, ~7 HD).

High and Very High level monsters can deal 3d6 damage (Balrog's aura, 9 HD; Earth & Water Elementals, 8/12/16 HD; Cloud Giants, 13 HD; Storm Giants, 16 HD; Rocs, 12 HD; Treants, ~10 HD)

Very, very few monsters deal 4d6 damage.

So here are our threats.
LOW LEVEL: +2 to hit for 1d6 damage
MEDIUM LEVEL: +6 to hit for 1d6+2 damagee (like an ogre)
HIGH LEVEL: +10 to hit for 2d6 damage
VERY HIGH LEVEL: +14 to hit for 3d6 damage

Now we can construct a table showing the number of rounds each character will last vs. a given threat.

FIGHTING MAN: AVERAGE DAMAGE SUSTAINED PER ROUND AND AVERAGE ROUNDS OF SURVIVAL

		CHARACTER
		LOW	MID	HIGH	V. HIGH
MONSTER	LOW	0.875 (10.3)	0.7 (37.14)	0.525 (85.7)	0.35 (180)
	MID	2.475 (3.6)	2.2 (11.8)	1.925 (23.38)	1.65 (38.2)
	HIGH	4.55 (1.98)	4.2 (6.2)	3.85 (11.7)	3.5 (18)
	V. HIGH	7.35 (1.22)	6.825 (3.8)	6.3 (7.14)	5.775 (10.9)

A "level appropriate" encounter is in blue. An easy encounter is in green. And a hard one is in red.

You could construct one for clerics and MUs, but all it would show is the number of rounds of survival decreasing. It'd be a big drop for both, because clerics have only around 2/3 as many HP and about -10% to HP; MUs have significantly worse AC and many fewer HP.

Interestingly, the "baseline" is for a fighting man to be able to take 10 attacks. Also interesting is that at low levels, combat is very swingy. The fighting man can take 10 attacks because he is very unlikely to be hit, but once he is hit, he's likely to die in one or two blows. At higher levels, the fighting man relies on his HPs, not his AC.

This is because the accuracy of monsters increases faster than character defenses (monsters get +1/HD, players get +1/4 HD), but player HP scales up faster than monster damage.

WOUNDS III: More on Toughness in Lieu of HP

First, two links to previous posts on the subject of wounding:
http://vedronspotionshop.blogspot.com/2009/04/using-toughness-checks-instead-of-hp.html
http://vedronspotionshop.blogspot.com/2009/03/woundshp.html

Here's a somewhat workable system, using the Septimus Core Mechanic described earlier.

- PCs have a wound track with six levels: Hale (4), Scratched (3), Bloodied (2), Dire (1), Knocked Out (0), and Dead (-1).
- Most monsters typically condense this into fewer steps; Hale, Bloodied, or KOd.
- When you are hit, you must make a toughness check. The TN is normally 5. If the damage source is a tier higher than you, it increases. If the damage source is a tier lower than you, it decreases.
- You get bonus dice in your Toughness Pool if you (A) have CON as a high score/prime statistic or (B) are wearing plate mail or (C) are using a shield. That means PCs will have 1 to 4 dice in their pool.

Against a standard damage source of the same tier, this is how the various players would turn out:
- 1 die pool (Wizard): 6 hits before KO
- 2 die pool (Swashbuckler with no heavy armor or shield): 9 hits before KO
- 3 die pool (Medium Fighter with medium armor and shield): 13 hits before KO
- 4 die pool (Heavy Fighter with plate and shield): 20 hits before KO

Hrm. That seems like a lot of hits. What if we reduce the wound track from 4 steps to 3 steps before a KO (Hale, Bloodied, Disabled, KOd)? Now we get:

- 1 die pool (Wizard): 4.5 hits
- 2 die pool (Swashbuckler with no heavy armor or shield): 6.6 hits
- 3 die pool (Medium Fighter with medium armor and shield): 10 hits
- 4 die pool (Heavy Fighter with plate and shield): 15 hits

Much better. We've reduced the difference between the rich and the poor to a reasonable level; this lets tanks take about 3 times as many hits as the squishy types. Although this is still a lot of attacks, especially if we postulate a 50%ish "hit" ratio. If folks get hit about half the time, it will take 9 attacks to take out a wizard, on average, and 20-30 attacks for a heavily armored fighting man!

Compared to S&W WB fighter, where a 3 HD fighter might have around 14 HP and AC 17 (plate + shield) vs. some orcs or hobgoblins (+1 to hit for 1d8 damage). The humanoids will deal an average of 1.125 damage per round, so our fighter will hold out for about 11.2 rounds. That means our fighter above is holding out twice as long. Hrm.

Lets see how it stacks up with a TN 6 and 3 hit-track scenario -- a "high damage" threat. This is like a low level character facing off against an ogre.

- 1 die pool (Wizard): 3.6 hits
- 2 die pool (Swashbuckler with no heavy armor or shield): 4.3 hits
- 3 die pool (Medium Fighter with medium armor and shield): 5.2 hits
- 4 die pool (Heavy Fighter with plate and shield): 6.25 hits

Interesting. A "scary" high potency monster significantly reduces the capability of the tankish types to take hits.

Now, an extremely high damage threat (TN 7). This is like a level 2-3 character facing a critter that does 3d6 damage, such as a Fire Giant. So expect them to get turned into paste.

- 1 die pool (Wizard): 3 hits
- 2 die pool (Swashbuckler with no heavy armor or shield): 3.1 hits
- 3 die pool (Medium Fighter with medium armor and shield): 3.2 hits
- 4 die pool (Heavy Fighter with plate and shield): 3.5 hits

Against the extremely high damage threat, everyone fares just about the same. They get turned into paste in about 3 attacks.

Compared to S&W WB fighter, where a 3 HD fighter might have around 14 HP and AC 17 (plate + shield) vs. a fire giant (+12 to hit for 2d6 damage). The giant will deal an average of 5.6 damage per round, so our fighter will hold out for about 2.5 rounds. That means our fighter above is holding out almost twice as long, again. Hrm.

Now, a low damage threat (TN 4). This is like a level 2-3 character facing a <1 style="font-style: italic;">That's a long time, but not anywhere near 48 rounds as postulated!

Thoughts

I am not sure if this is quite the appropriate mechanic. On the face of it, it seems good. It does allow tanks to handle significantly more punishment from level appropriate foes. It also replicates the near invulnerability of a fighter-type to lower level monsters. It allows the "hits" to happen about 1/2 the time without increasing lethality too much.

However, it also allows fighters to hold out twice as long as OD&D characters could normally. I think this makes them too durable.

One problem I have is that tanks suck against high-damage monsters. A fighter should have the best chance going toe-to-toe with an ogre or giant. As it is, he has the best odds but they're still not good. Heavily protected fighters have a strong incentive to go after the mobs of smaller, less damaging monsters with this sort of damage mechanic and let the big monsters be controlled by other means.

Although, that might be the vibe you want.

So, on the whole, I have to conclude that this mechanic is not viable as postulated here.


ADDENDUM: After conducting the OD&D analysis in Part 4 of this series, I've been rethinking my position on this again.

This mechanic lets fighting types hold out against a strong monster much longer than an OD&D type can. Plus its less egg-shelly. The OD&D one is likely to hold out for 2-3 rounds just because the monster rolls poorly, and then once the monster hits, SPLAT, the fighter is jelly. This variant is likely to hold out for just a few rounds too but there will be a rapid slide in condition.

One problem is that this does let folks hold out too long. According to my analysis, a fighter type should be able to take about 10 rounds of punishment. That squares with common sense too -- more than that and they won't be seriously injured at the end of a typical fight, which isn't exciting.

So, there are two options. Reduce the odds of success (move a standard DC/TN up from 5 to 6) or reduce the number of Wound Levels again from 3 to 2. This is how the 3E D20 UA handles it (check out the "Injury" section of the SRD). A sub-choice of this is to keep 3 Wound Levels, but impose cripping penalties on the third level so that a character might as well be out of the fight. Combined with upping the chance to hit from 50% to 60 or 70%, that should just about do it.

So, we'd have wound levels like:

Hale
Bloodied
Disabled - Serious penalties
Dying - Bleeding out, cannot act
Dead

Thus, characters would find themselves Disabled at the end of most fights. But, players always find a way to twink things. Plus, with in-combat healing, I'm still afraid characters will end up being too tough. So, maybe dropping a wound level is better. But then you end up with characters basically having one hit before they die.

WOUNDS II: Using Toughness Checks instead of HP

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the idea of reducing granularity. For example, instead of counting off each arrow in a 20-arrow quiver, you could roll 1d20 every shot and on a "1" say the entire quiver is used up. Or, you could roll a D10 and say on the first 1 its half-empty and on the second 1 its out. Or, you could roll a smaller die (or the same die with greater odds) at a less frequent interval (say, a D4 at the end of the encounter).

Why not do something similar with HP?

For example. Moe the Fighter has 20 HP. That means he can take about 5 or 6 dice worth of hits (6 sided dice). You could instead say that Moe has three Health Levels: Hale, Wounded, and Disabled (then perhaps a fourth -- dead!). Whenever Moe takes a hit, he needs to roll some sort of check with about a 50% chance of success. If he fails, he drops a health level.

You can represent double damage -- perhaps that done by a powerful monster -- by requiring Moe to roll twice on each hit (i.e., he can drop two health levels at once!) or by significantly reducing the odds of success (i.e., he is very likely to lose one health level). You can represent smalld amage by increasing the odds of success.

You can replicate higher HP totals (say, a fighter vs. a MU) either by giving the fighter more Health Levels of HP or by giving the fighter a smaller chance to lose a Health Level (maybe the Fighter needs to roll 3-6 on a D6 to pass, and the MU only passes on a 6).

The advantages to this system are that it allows for more player control -- you are rolling the dice. It also is less granular which has some advantages (reduction of math, etc). There's a more dramatic feeling with each wound, rather than a "circling the drain" decrease of HP. It makes it very clear to see what everyone's HP status is at any given time.

Disadvantages -- it can be swingier. You could get poor luck where the durable fighter that only has a 25% chance to lose a level each check fails the check four times in a row, or you can get a doughty (lucky?) MU that passes four times in a row when he should fail.

WOUNDS I: How many HP?

How many HP should something have?

WHAT SHOULD IT BE?

Well, I think, sticking with our rule of 7, a player should be able to be attacked 5-9 times before they go down, depending on class/role (tanks take more hits than glass cannons). Sticking with our rule of 3, most monsters should go down in 3 good hits.

HOW DOES OD&D PERFORM?

Going with OD&D guidelines, PC damage output is either 3.5 per hit (1d6) or 4.5 per hit (2d6, retain the highest) for your large weapons.

Most monsters do normal weapon damage too (1d6). Ogres deal 1d6+2. The larger giants deal 2d6+1, 2d6+2, and 3d6 damage. Sea Monsters deal 3d6 or 4d6. An earth elemental does 2d6-3d6. For "large animals" (including T-Rex!) damage guidelines are 2d6-4d6.

Thus, there's a rough pattern for monsters: They deal about 1d6 of damage for every 4 HD ("Tier"). So, a low level critter deals 1d6; a mid level critter 2d6; a high level critter 3d6; and the top of the scale is 4d6.

A 1+1 HD monster (say, a humanoid of some sort) vs. AC 3 (our fighter in plate) hits on a 15 (so 30% of the time) and deals 3.5 damage. The fighter likely has 4.5 HP. So, it will take about four rounds for a hobgoblin to kill a fighter. As soon as our fighter moves into the middle of that lower tier of play (level 2-3), it will take 8-12 rounds to kill him as he has gained extra HP. Then, he'll start facing mid-tier monsters and the cycle begins again, reducing surviveability again.

Our hobgoblin is AC 5 with 1 full HD. So, our first tier fighter needs a 14 to hit (35%). he deals about 3.5 damage, so he can expect to drop the hobgoblin about 3 rounds of attacking.

So, as we can see, OD&D fits my expectation pretty well, at least at low levels.

However, one thing that is likely frustrating is the low chances to hit. Each hit does a lot of damage but is unlikely to connect; i.e., the fighter is likely to miss twice and then splatter the hobgoblin with his third strike. My suggested to-hit system tends to give 50-66% odds of hitting rather than OD&D's 33% chance to hit. Thus, HP inflation needs to occur.

The Way Ahead

I want monsters to continue to largely use D6s for damage. So, we can tentatively go with 1d6/tier, with high damage monsters either getting a +1 or +2 bonus (or rolling 1d8 or 1d10). A typical monster will have 33%-50% to hit a plate clad fighter, so if we want that character to last for 7+/-2 attacks, then the character needs to have at least 10 HP. Against a middle of the road character (say, one in chain), the character would need ~14 HP to last for 7 attacks.

On one hand, I like the idea of players dealing 1d6 for damage. However, that really limits your possible weapons options and everything feels very much the same. It also likely undervalues two-handed weapons by giving them only +1 damage, basically. With D6s, your basic options for average damage output are:

1d6 = 3.5
2d6 retain the highest = 4.5, low results unlikely
2d6 retain the lowest = 2.5, high results unlikely
2d6 total both = 7

This is compared to my damage table (see another post) which tends to give results like:
1d4 = 2.5
1d6 = 3.5
1d10 = 5.5

In either event, though, the center of the road is 3.5. So for a monster to go down in 3 hits, it needs to have about 10 HP. It will take about 5-6 rounds to drop it. If that monster has a -1 AC penalty (that's -1 on a D6...), say, for being a "brute" then to stay up for 5-6 rounds it needs to have around 13-14 HP.

So we derive for monsters (for tier 1 at least):
Average monsters should have about 10 HP.
"Brutes" with -1 AC should get 13 or 14 HP.
"Soldiers" with +1 AC could get by with 7 HP.

And for PCs:
Weak/Light (leather, can take 5 attacks): 11.6 HP
Weak/Mod (chain, 5 attacks): 8.75 HP
Weak/Hvy (plate, 5 attacks): 5.8 HP
Mod/Light (leather, 7 attacks): 16.3 HP
Mod/Mod (chain mail, 7 attacks): 12.25 HP
Mod/Hvy (plate, 7 attacks): 8.2 HP
Tough/Light (leather, 9 attacks): 21 HP
Tough/Mod (chain, 9 attacks): 15.75 HP
Tough/Hvy (plate/9 attacks): 10.5 HP

The absolute high end of reasonable character archetypes would be 21 HP -- the barbarian with light armor and high durability. The absolute low end of reasonable archetypes is 8.2 HP -- the cleric in plate mail. The best range is likely within that -- I'm guessing somewhere from 10-16 HP.

Relating that back to mechanics I already have, what about 4+/-MOD (giving 1-7) + Max of Traditional Hit Die (so 4 for wizards, 6 for thieves, 8 for clerics, 10 for fighters)?

Or you can just give HP equal to the character's starting CON score. That is more luck dependent.

ADDENDUM

Dan over at Geek Grab Bag suggests that the worst case beatdown should have a defined Start, Middle, and End. That is, the overeager scout/thief that gets jumped while scouting should have about 3 rounds of survival, as should the mage that gets swarmed.

With hexes the most foes that can get in is 6. With squares its 9. However, at some point, most critters get large, so that limits the reasonable number of foes to 4-6.

4-6 monsters * 0.66666 to hit = 2.6666 - 4 hits per round. if you give a 50% to hit (...might be a good time to go total defense) its 4-6 * 0.5 = 2-3 hits per round. In OD&D (where monsters do 1d6 per tier), that'd be 9 - 14 HP (scenario A) or 7-11 HP (scenario B) each round. So your mage or over-eager scout needs a minimum of 21 HP to have a defined start, middle, and end to his Monster Mash experience.

You can get away with fewer HP if you allow for a Panic Button. For example, a limited healing power might buy you a round of time. So I'd say that maybe 14 HP is the minimum, and figure that the PC can buy themselves a third round either by killing off some of the bad guys mobbing them or use of a limited resource (consumable/power).

DOUBLE ADDENDUM:

Note that increasing monster HP with level requires increasing damage output with level too. Some ways that has been done:
- AD&D's ranger bonus damage
- Bonus damage vs. large critters (large critters tend to have more HD -- note that this nicely puts the game in two scales, so a fighter with a long sword can face a bunch of orcs and its interesting, or a bunch of ogres and its interesting; this is basically a fighter-only feature because its the bladed weapons that tend to do so much better)
- Multiple attacks for fighter types
- Magical "pluses" adding to damage rolls
- Chances to hit increase very fast (remember that fighter-type in "Against the Giants" that hit on a 2?)
- Spells that scale with level (the classic 1d6 per level for fireballs et al...)
- Scaling backstab damage (double, then triple, then quadruple, etc)
- Increasing critical damage (a 4E technique)
- Giving everyone double damage at epic levels (another 4E technique)

If you significantly scale monster HP with level then you MUST include some of these "work arounds" for players to keep pace.