Translating the concept of HP from D&D (and the like) to GURPS

[AlexanderHowl]

A 50 point GURPS mage would be a rather pathetic creature (that is more the point level of a 10 year old apprentice). Then again, 1st level D&D mage lived in terror of kittens, so they were even more pathetic.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

A 50 point GURPS mage would be a rather pathetic creature (that is more the point level of a 10 year old apprentice). Then again, 1st level D&D mage lived in terror of kittens, so they were even more pathetic.

Actually the D&D mage got a little away from the pathetic creature that was the butt of every class joke there was with 3rd edition though not far enough as demonstrated by the 1st level Classic WoW mage.

Ironically WoW shows the major downside of levels - stuff that gave you problems at low levels is can now be one shotted with ease and you have to come out with all kinds of wacked out reasons as to why many of these guys are still a problem.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Thamior

I like vitality reserve but it needs a bit of tweaking IMHO. First, 1 hp / day is pretty steep and it isn't scalable at all.

Hitpoint healing already scales with the amount of health you have, and I see no reason why VR healing wouldn't also scale.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by maximara

the major downside of levels - stuff that gave you problems at low levels is can now be one shotted with ease and you have to come out with all kinds of wacked out reasons as to why many of these guys are still a problem.

That problem isn't exclusive to systems with levels. Consider if it were worded as "the major downside of point-buy -- stuff that gave you problems at 50 points can be one-shotted with ease at 1000". You're objecting to having a wide range of possible power in a setting, not the mechanics by which it's measured and allocated.

The drawbacks to levels are that they're generally of large granularity, so there are big jumps between adjacent levels, and also usually broad, fixed packages of ability, making it harder (not impossible, but harder) to have different characters or trade off for specialties.

Both of those can be considered advantages, of course. Just depends on what you want. Similarly, the wide range of power is often appealing to players. You can feel a sense of improvement when you can go back and one-shot that stuff that used to give you trouble. It's harder to feel that you've really learned and gotten better when you get 3 points toward an abstract accumulation that will eventually let you buy the smallest quantum of upgrade to a single skill of the dozen or so you routinely use to do your job.

As to why that stuff still exists, the settings give you the easy and obvious answer -- there's bigger, badder, stuff that demands the attention of the high-level characters. I think of it as the "Pug problem", from Feist's series*, so it's not unique to MMOs or CRPGs or even games. There's always a reason the more powerful characters are busy handling some problem that's a foe beyond any of you (fly, you fools!) while you go off and level up somewhere more level-appropriate.

--
* If you haven't read them, "Magician" and the rest of the books set in Midkemia. Pug is a servant boy in a castle. In the best D&D zero-to-hero style, he has adventures, becomes a magician, then world-hops, winds up at the most powerful magician ever, defeats the big bad guy, becoming famous and respected and noble and all. In later books he even turns down becoming the god of magic. Pretty much every book after the first one, Feist has to insert some scene explaining why Pug the famous master magician doesn't just pop over and solve the problem. Pug's usually busy keeping cosmic menaces from destroying the world or for that matter the entire material plane while the new heroes actually solve the problem.

[AlexanderHowl]

Originally Posted by maximara

Actually the D&D mage got a little away from the pathetic creature that was the butt of every class joke there was with 3rd edition though not far enough as demonstrated by the 1st level Classic WoW mage.

Ironically WoW shows the major downside of levels - stuff that gave you problems at low levels is can now be one shotted with ease and you have to come out with all kinds of wacked out reasons as to why many of these guys are still a problem.

Leveling such as used by the defunct Anima system was alright, but otherwise your point is valid. Of course, when you translate capabilities from D&D to GURPS, a starting GURPS character at 150 CP could TPK a starting D&D party. For example, a 3rd edition 1st level fighter was lucky to have a +5 to attack and a +3 to damage, meaning that they translated to a ST 13 character with a skill of 12 (75% chance to hit, just like a +5 for a D20). A starting GURPS fighter could easily have ST 12, DX 12, and HT 12, Ambidexterity, Combat Reflexes, and Shortsword at DX+10. With two batons, the GURPS character could parry two attacks per turn at 95% success and deal critical damage to one skull per turn with a 50% success. While the GURPS fighter would take damage, they would probably beat to death the entire 3rd edition party in ten turns.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Leveling such as used by the defunct Anima system was alright, but otherwise your point is valid. Of course, when you translate capabilities from D&D to GURPS, a starting GURPS character at 150 CP could TPK a starting D&D party. For example, a 3rd edition 1st level fighter was lucky to have a +5 to attack and a +3 to damage, meaning that they translated to a ST 13 character with a skill of 12 (75% chance to hit, just like a +5 for a D20). A starting GURPS fighter could easily have ST 12, DX 12, and HT 12, Ambidexterity, Combat Reflexes, and Shortsword at DX+10. With two batons, the GURPS character could parry two attacks per turn at 95% success and deal critical damage to one skull per turn with a 50% success. While the GURPS fighter would take damage, they would probably beat to death the entire 3rd edition party in ten turns.

A skill at DX+10 is probably excessive for a [150] character - using a [125] template from the Henchmen DF book and beefing it up a bit is probably a lot more appropriate. I’m also not certain why you’re setting +5 to attack as skill 12 - that 75% is apparently assuming a DnD target wearing padded cloth armor and either having average Dex or being flat-footed, as opposed to a GURPS target that isn’t defending but the character isn’t using Telegraphic Attack. It’s also assuming a single actual attack in the 6-second round. Things might also go differently depending on if you translate the DnD party into GURPS stats and run the encounter that way, or translate the GURPS character into DnD stats and run it that way. Interestingly, I think each side would be at a disadvantage in its own rule set - the DnD party surrounding the GURPS character is a more effective strategy in GURPS than in DnD.

Note the above is a lot like a skilled character going up against a group of (smarter than normal) goblins. Under DnD rules, he/she will probably be fine outside of a critical hit. Under GURPS rules, he/she is in serious trouble.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

That problem isn't exclusive to systems with levels. Consider if it were worded as "the major downside of point-buy -- stuff that gave you problems at 50 points can be one-shotted with ease at 1000".

Actually that is not true in the same way as it is for level based systems. Levels based systems simply don't have the variation point based ones do.

More over 1000 points in GURPS, by definition, is in the True demigod and higher range. (Basic Set pg 487)

Furthermore access to cinematic advantages and skills changes the whole point comparison dynamic. A 200 point character with access to the cinematic abilities could totally curb stomp a 1000 point character built along totally "realistic" lines.

Heck, the setting itself can change the whole picture. Lina Inverse for example sits around 500 points but thanks to the way magic works in her world (Spirit Assisted Magic with the Completely Free Spells option) would totally toast a 1000 point mage using the standard GURPS Magic system. Lina is even more powerful then Filia Ul Copt a gold dragon who clocks in around 700 points.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Varyon

A skill at DX+10 is probably excessive for a [150] character - using a [125] template from the Henchmen DF book and beefing it up a bit is probably a lot more appropriate. I’m also not certain why you’re setting +5 to attack as skill 12 - that 75% is apparently assuming a DnD target wearing padded cloth armor and either having average Dex or being flat-footed, as opposed to a GURPS target that isn’t defending but the character isn’t using Telegraphic Attack. It’s also assuming a single actual attack in the 6-second round. Things might also go differently depending on if you translate the DnD party into GURPS stats and run the encounter that way, or translate the GURPS character into DnD stats and run it that way. Interestingly, I think each side would be at a disadvantage in its own rule set - the DnD party surrounding the GURPS character is a more effective strategy in GURPS than in DnD.

Note the above is a lot like a skilled character going up against a group of (smarter than normal) goblins. Under DnD rules, he/she will probably be fine outside of a critical hit. Under GURPS rules, he/she is in serious trouble.

The second part depends on what cinematic rules are in place. Under the Cannon Fodder rule the goblins would be toast even against an "average" GURPS fighter.

The difference between the combat rounds is the biggest hurdle to figuring out how well the D&D characters are in combat because by GURPS standards they are insanely slow. A GURPS fighter with fast draw and taking the time to aim can shoot three arrows at the D&D party while each of them can do one thing.

Though the slowness of D&D combat does raise a key question: just what are the D&D character doing over those 6 seconds?

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by maximara

The second part depends on what cinematic rules are in place. Under the Cannon Fodder rule the goblins would be toast even against an "average" GURPS fighter.

Depends on the number of goblins and their combat strategy. If they manage to successfully surround the character so that one or more get an attack that can’t be defended against, that may well be game over for our hero. Even without that, iteration penalties for multiple defenses can add up quickly if all the goblins attack at once.

Originally Posted by maximara

Though the slowness of D&D combat does raise a key question: just what are the D&D character doing over those 6 seconds?

Moving 10 yards (7 yards for slow characters, 13 for fast ones), vying for an opening, and - in melee combat - throwing multiple attacks. Each attack roll in DnD is meant to represent multiple attacks*. Some miss, some “hit” (whatever that ends up meaning when dealing with abstract HP), and your damage roll represents how much of an impact all those “hits” had. If foes do something to expose themselves during this time (attack unarmed, move past you, cast spells, etc), you are likely to land more “hits” (in the form of Attacks of Opportunity). Ranged combat obviously involves only one actual attack per roll, as each attack only uses one piece of ammunition. This isn’t as slow as it sounds - a GURPS character who moves 10 yards, successfully Fast Draws an arrow and draws it, gets to maximum Aim, and attacks would actually take 7 seconds to pull that off (2 to move, 1 to nock the arrow, 3 to Aim, 1 to Attack).

*Edit: If you dislike the idea of multiple attacks per roll, consider DnD doesn’t have the equivalent of Evaluate - assume the characters Evaluate for 3 seconds prior to attacking, and all 6 seconds are accounted for.

[RyanW]

Before trying to translate directly, realize that D&D combat dynamic is just about backwards from that of GURPS. As D&D characters become more skilled, fights tend to result in ever increasing number of less effective hits.