I use 1D6 for base wpn damage so 1D6/level for HP makes sense.

As I cap my OD&D at 10th level, that's 10D6. (aka, 10D+10 for Fighters, 10D for Clerics, and 10D-10 for Mages)

So - on average - a 8th level PC will survive 8 blows that would kill a normal man. I'm good with that.

Quote from: S'mon;1048732I have a bit of an issue with simulationist systems in that they tend to give ridiculously fast healing; it's a bigger issue in natural healing systems as opposed to super tech or magic based ones. Where in reality it might take weeks to heal fully from a minor wound, and major wounds likely have permanent effects, in most games you heal from major wounds in a few days. I find abstract hp systems tend to give me less cognitive dissonance in practice, even though I like gritty sim in theory.

Yes, I tend to like the healing to be gritty, too. Having to deal with wounded people and keeping them safe while resting is I think an interesting and welcome thing. Specific results of combat choices leading to a lasting situation, and all that.

I don't really care about hitpoints. I don't think anyone really cares about them either. It's the lethality of the combat that people are writing about in this thread.

I like static damage and static armor and dynamic hit chance. Highly lethal, rewards niches, requires tactical thought right from the get-go to survive combat. Makes it a last resort/first choice binary which is excellent if you seek authenticity in modelling how people behave in real-life.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1049568I don't really care about hitpoints. I don't think anyone really cares about them either. It's the lethality of the combat that people are writing about in this thread.

Absolute size of the numbers is a (minor-ish) issue. Generally the smaller numbers the better for dealing with/tracking. It's far more of an issue with monsters; I don't like tracking a bunch of three-digit numbers or a huge number of high two-digit.

I don't like D&D style abstract "you can't hurt me with a sword because I'm a high level hero"  hit points.  I do like HP as a damage mechanism (better than wound levels or whatnot), but I prefer static "meat point's" as you find in BRP, GRPS, etc.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1049634I don't like D&D style abstract "you can't hurt me with a sword because I'm a high level hero"  hit points.  I do like HP as a damage mechanism (better than wound levels or whatnot), but I prefer static "meat point's" as you find in BRP, GRPS, etc.

The problem I have with static meat points is that every combat resolution mechanism I've ever seen attached to them either adds a stamina mechanism that may as well be non-physical hit points (because running out either knocks you out or leaves you unable to use a defensive move to save yourself) so you can't just keep fighting forever -or- it fails to include such a system and you get a situation where combat is literally just throwing dice until someone beats the odds.

The latter is just silly and the former can be simplified by just using scaling non-physical hit points in the first place and keeping the combat target numbers inside a range where the hit points of even an extremely skilled combatant can be whittled down by enough mooks.

I'm not a fan of simplicity simply for simplicity's sake, but in general I've found something akin to non-physical hit points coupled that increase with skill level and with defense target numbers that can be hit even by the weakest foes to be the best approximation of actual fights where,once a combatant reaches a given level of competence, a fight with someone of the same or greater skill basically comes down to who can wear the other guy down enough that they make a mistake you can exploit to finish them. The more skilled one usually needs to expend far less energy on countering (mechanically a larger pool of hit points) while forcing their opponent to expend more energy countering (i.e. deals more damage per round). AC in this case represents the difficulty in finding an opportunity in a given stretch of the combat to force your opponent to expend energy on countering in the first place.

By the same token I generally prefer AC to damage reduction for armor because, after learning more about the subject most period armor was largely invulnerable (or nearly enough so) to weapons of the same period and most fighting techniques focused on how best to bypass said armor and the number of opportunities to hit those vulnerable points is reduced the better the armor is. That it also removes a step from turn resolution is just an added benefit.

Quote from: AsenRG;1049123I'd note that even in L&D, nothing prevents me from being well in the double-digit HPs by 4th level;).

Well sure, if you're lucky, or selective.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1049198I must be interpreting the rules wrong or have a different idea of well into double digits then. Based on my understanding a fighter rolling the max of 10 at 1st level, +2 per level (or +6 hp  @ 4th) and with the max Con of 18 (bonus of +3) that would only be 28 hit points. With a Con of 10-17 Max hit points would be 20-24hp.

Max HP for a 10th level fighter would be 60, with 30-40 being much more likely. 40 would be my threshold for well into double digits.

In L&D, fighters would get:

At 0 level: 1d6+CON bonus
At 1st Level: 1d10+CON

after 1st Level: +2hp (no CON bonus)
but they also roll at every level, including 1st, on a table of random benefits. At every level they get to roll twice (or pick once). On the fighter table, a result of 1-2 (on a d12) means they get a bonus of +1d8+CON bonus in hit points.

So a fighter with +1 CON would have, by level 6, an average of 26 or 27 hit points. But could in theory have a lot more.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1049911Well sure, if you're lucky, or selective.

I don't need to be really lucky, if I've got a mere +1 modifier in Con, which is something lots of warriors would have (about every third human character in a 3d6 in order system would roll at least that, and most that roll crap on that probably wouldn't choose Warrior at all).
If I've got a +1 for Con, by 3rd level I've got 1d6+1d10+6 HP, and could, theoretically, have 22 HP already (but yes, that would be a 1:60 odds, so I'm discounting that option).
However, if I've rolled no "HP" benefit by the first 3 levels, at 4th level I can just pick to roll for HP, making that a total of 1d6+1d8+1d10+9HP. In fact, it would probably be a good idea to roll for it by then, system-wise:)!

The average of these rolls is 22-23 HP, which is what I mean by "well in the double digits". I just need to not roll much below the average on these three rolls;).
So yes, your system does alleviate the problem. It's just not enough.

As much as I love Basic, I dislike the level 9 cap because it doesn't actually make HP harder to get after level 9.

So, 1dx+con per level is good enough for me. But TBH I don't even need that: in my Dark Fantasy basic I just did 4+Con for all classes. The Fighter will have a bigger cCon, of course, and so on.

Quote from: AsenRG;1049957I don't need to be really lucky, if I've got a mere +1 modifier in Con, which is something lots of warriors would have (about every third human character in a 3d6 in order system would roll at least that, and most that roll crap on that probably wouldn't choose Warrior at all).
If I've got a +1 for Con, by 3rd level I've got 1d6+1d10+6 HP, and could, theoretically, have 22 HP already (but yes, that would be a 1:60 odds, so I'm discounting that option).
However, if I've rolled no "HP" benefit by the first 3 levels, at 4th level I can just pick to roll for HP, making that a total of 1d6+1d8+1d10+9HP. In fact, it would probably be a good idea to roll for it by then, system-wise:)!

The average of these rolls is 22-23 HP, which is what I mean by "well in the double digits". I just need to not roll much below the average on these three rolls;).
So yes, your system does alleviate the problem. It's just not enough.

Well, tastes may vary. For me, a Fighter having about 22hp by level 4 seems just about right.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1050527Well, tastes may vary. For me, a Fighter having about 22hp by level 4 seems just about right.

Which is why I said your game does well what it sets out to do. It just doesn't solve my problem with the excess of HP;).

Quote from: RPGPundit;1049914In L&D, fighters would get:

At 0 level: 1d6+CON bonus
At 1st Level: 1d10+CON

after 1st Level: +2hp (no CON bonus)
but they also roll at every level, including 1st, on a table of random benefits. At every level they get to roll twice (or pick once). On the fighter table, a result of 1-2 (on a d12) means they get a bonus of +1d8+CON bonus in hit points.

So a fighter with +1 CON would have, by level 6, an average of 26 or 27 hit points. But could in theory have a lot more.

Thank you the zero level throws me, I'm not used to that. It's like the trucks that have a low gear and 1st gear or elevators with a ground floor and a 1st floor (and maybe a mezzanine level just to really mess with your mind). Makes sense just a little different.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1050633Thank you the zero level throws me, I'm not used to that. It's like the trucks that have a low gear and 1st gear or elevators with a ground floor and a 1st floor (and maybe a mezzanine level just to really mess with your mind). Makes sense just a little different.

Yeah. It makes your first adventure with the character quite different, because you're not really a 'veteran' yet. You're on the verge of becoming someone important. And of course it's much riskier.

But it also has the mechanical effect of giving you (if you survive) a bit more of a buffer at level 1. Level 1 L&D characters will have more hitpoints than most level 1 OSR characters, though that very quickly changes, so that higher level L&D characters will have less than equivalent high-level L&D characters. All of which was what I intended.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1050989But it also has the mechanical effect of giving you (if you survive) a bit more of a buffer at level 1. Level 1 L&D characters will have more hitpoints than most level 1 OSR characters, though that very quickly changes, so that higher level L&D characters will have less than equivalent high-level L&D characters. All of which was what I intended.

That I think is the key. Some systems seem to just throw HP out and then design the system around it. That's the reverse of what it should be. The levels of HP at various levels should be deliberate and designed into the system from the ground up.