Re: Richard Gant's Hitpoint-Dierollimprovement Table

WARNING!  Not on list topic!  If you want something that is purely
SPelljammer, keep moving.  You have been warned.  :)

On Fri, 3 Jul 1998, Optimus wrote:

> Basically I agree, but as I wrote in my other message, it is a shame
> that PCs tend to get overconfident while fighting and then start
> whining, once they are down to a few hitpoints and could actually
> die.

I *like* them overconfident.  That generates the risk in my campaigns.  My
players start thinking "We can take on *one* more enemy...", and then
suffer.  Of course, they know that I have a low tolerance for whiners, and
have actually seen me kill someone for it.

> I prefer a system with a minimum risk at all times, even when the
> hitpoints are at their maximum. And this reminds me to modify the
> optional rule of an unmodified "20" on the attack roll into a
> critical hit rather than an additional attack.

I've moved to an open-ended damage system, where you get more damage based
on how well you roll.  You take the difference between what you neded to
roll to hit and what you rolled, and then subtract three from that
(example:  if you needed a 12 to hit and you rolled a 17, the difference
is 5;  subtracting 3 from 5 gets you 2).  This becomes your Damage
Modifier.  The Damage Modifier translates into extra damage in the same
manner as THAC0 progression, with a few modifiers:
Class                    Damage Modifier/Damage
Warrior                         1/1
Priest                          2/3
Rogue                           1/2 (1/1 when backstabbing)
Wizard                          1/3 (1/1 for spells)

On a natural 20, you get to roll again and add that number to your
original roll (but not more than once, making 40 the highest you can
roll).

> You probably intended it this way anyway, but just to be on the save
> side, I would suggest that you can only modify each die roll once.
> For instance, you cannot boost your to-hit by 5 points, but just by
> one, either before or after the die-roll (which is, according to the
> chart, more expensive for the obvious reason).

Actually, I was going to alow them to boost the rolls as high as they
want.  It's their hit points, after all.  I may figure out some
level-based cap on it, but I might not.  Sure it could get abusive, but I
like to run a heroic and larger-than-life campaign;  this allows the
players to act larger-than-life without unbalancing the game too badly.  A
more "realistic" (low fantasy) game would probably need the limits more.

> However increasing the damage roll afterwards does not seem to make
> sense to me, since Damage is scored automatically and it does not
> matter whether I increase it before or after rolling.
> Perhaps you should rather consider a re-roll, if player's are not
> content with their damage roll. A re-roll should cost more than a +1
> adjustment though.

Maybe, instead of a re-roll, purchasing extra dice for damage before the
roll.  Something like 3 hp for a d4, 4 hp for a d6, 5 hp for a d8, 6 hp
for a d10, and 7 hp for a d12.  You can buy and die you want, but you can
only buy one and only before you roll.  It would probably work better with
the system I outlined above anyway.

Richard Gant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence;
supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without
fighting.  In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take
the enemy's country whole and intact;  to shatter and destroy it is not so
good.  So, too, it is better to capture an army entire than to destroy it,
to capture a regiment, a detachment, or a company entire than to destroy
them.
     -Sun Tzu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------