4E's hit point philosophy

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Huh? Change damage notation from 'Pi++', etc, to 'Pi+2' or whatever, apply it to all attack types instead of just Pi, compare the wound class modifier to the SM of the target, and do a table lookup. Add some special processing for area effect attacks (most likely, they simply ignore target SM unless the target is larger than the area effect). A simple table would be:

• [B]WCM-SM >= 2: wounding multiplier = (WCM-SM)
• [B]WCM-SM == 1: wounding multiplier = 1.5
• [B]WCM-SM == 0: wounding multiplier = 1.0
• [B]WCM-SM == -1: wounding multiplier = 2/3.
• [B]WCM-SM == -2: wounding multiplier = 1/2.
• [B]WCM-SM == -3: wounding multiplier = 1/3.
• [B]WCM-SM == -4: wounding multiplier = 1/5.
• [B]WCM-SM == -5: wounding multiplier = 1/7.
• [B]WCM-SM == -6: wounding multiplier = 1/10.
• etc...
• Attacks get +4 WCM vs the brain, +2 vs the vitals.
• Cutting attacks get +1 WCM, Impaling attacks get +2.
• For firearms, look up size (in mm) on the size chart and subtract 3, so 7-10mm is +0.
• Unliving is -2 WCM for piercing and impaling, Homogenous is -4.
• IT(DR) subtracts from WCM on a 1:1 basis.

This makes SM significantly better, but IMO SM is currently a net penalty, so no big deal.

That's where I was at, yes. I think your simple table is exactly what I had, more or less.

It's fine-tuning it to fit with observable benchmarks, avoiding Murphy's edge cases, preventing it from changing the basic paradigm of play too much and suchlike that still remain.

I'm fairly confident that this is a nice way to handle the problem. I just think that it needs careful tuning to be up to the standards of usual GURPS rules and that this requires fairly extensive playtesting as well as research of any and all real world benchmarks we can find.

[apoc527]

I'm solidly in Andrew Hackard's camp here, regarding playability versus simulationism being design choices and what not, but I also completely understand the desire for things to make sense. I guess I could claim I don't quite understand the roleplaying necessity of working out Age of Sail ship battles, but that's a lie--I've done plenty of starship fights in game where the results mattered and it's no different on the oceans.

My question is actually: don't the Alternate GURPS Pyramid issues directly address some of these concerns? And isn't that what Pyramid is for? I agree it's a bit odd for pi++ to represent everything from a musket ball up to a massive battleship gun, but it would be more trouble than it's worth to start differentiating those (at least to me, and evidently Andrew).

But, isn't it precisely true that Pulver, at least, tried to help us out with some of the ALternate GURPS articles? I recall the one with the reduced wounding for larger SMs and the increased HP. "Extreme Damage" from Pyramid #3/34 is the one. Does this help enough? He even specifically cites the problems with two 74 gun ships-of-the-line!

What if you used both the IT idea AND the square root of weight for HP of unliving things?

(Random questions: where are the stats for Age of Sail ships in GURPS? I can't seem to locate them!)

[Polydamas]

Apoc, there are some in GURPS (4e) Fantasy. There may be some more in LT.

Originally Posted by rust

Hardly, but there are only very few roleplaying game combat systems where
the authors succeeded to create one system for the different scales of any
potential combat, from human scale to small vehicle scale to ship / starship
scale - frankly, I have yet to see a truly convincing example, in the end it al-
ways comes down to two separate systems for human scale and big vehicle
scale. In my view the standard GURPS combat system does acceptably well
for human scale combat, which in my experience almost implies that it is less
able to deliver equally good results on the big vehicle scale, this would requi-
re a second, differently scaled system. Unfortunately such a system seems
to be missing (I do not know all GURPS materials), but this is not a fault of
the human scale combat system which obviously was designed for a different
purpose - using it for a bigger scale just does not make much sense.

Expanding the rules for combat between small groups to mass combat faces the same problems. Taking a system designed for one and adapting it to the other usually works poorly. Usually, the designers have to build a separate system for mass combat which does not simply extrapolate from the rules for combat between individuals. And there are edge cases such as a group of heroes fighting the other side's dragon during a great battle, or a single hero who can defeat dozens of enemies in the same battle.

[apoc527]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Apoc, there are some in GURPS (4e) Fantasy. There may be some more in LT.

Thanks! I knew I saw them somewhere!

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Apoc, there are some in GURPS (4e) Fantasy. There may be some more in LT.

The Fantasy stats seemed to be viewed as very bad, IIRC.

Low Tech has a brig and a small sloop. I haven't actually seen any discussion of them.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by hal

H

So, the question becomes one of:

If you quadruple the mass of water, would you expect that the energy required to vaporize that larger mass of water to be a function of the cube root of the mass of that water times 8, or would you expect the energy to vaporize four times the water by mass, to be approximately equal to 4 times the energy required to vaporize the smaller mass of water?

My instinctive response would be 4x the energy.

Now why did I take the example of water instead of say, wood, flesh, or something else?

GURPS has the rationale that X points of damage will render an object non-functional, and that 10x that level of damage will obliterate it with total destruction (more or less). Killing a character in GURPS works because you only need to cause vital organs to cease function, and the entire organism ceases to live. Damaging a car engine needs only for some vital "thing" to be damaged to where the engine ceases to function. But in each case, there is an upper limit to how much damage any given thing can take.

So, the water illustration was meant to be a VERY simplified demonstration of what I'm having problems with. Dumping energy into water in the form of a plasma bolt for instance, can be a function of a weapon attack on a non-living thing.

So, in the end, I ponder "Why did SJGames go with the idea that hit points do not scale directly with mass, but scales as the cube root? Energy affecting a given volume isn't a function of the cube root of the volume, nor the cube root of the volume's mass, but a direct function of the mass itself. At least, that is what I seem to recall from the pre-historic era of my education in physics back in the late 70's and early 80's (and yes, I'm OLD - but still breathing at least!)

Comments?

Have you considered blowthrough and bounce back? I mean it's not like in a combat situation you can tidily dump all of the energy into what you are hitting, with no wastage.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by hal

I have a book that relates of a battle involving a 98 gun ship of the line...

I understand and appreciate the historical examples; thanks. But I remain curious: What's the GURPS equivalent that leaves you unsatisfied, in terms of specific numbers? What's the damage stat for the equivalent cannons, and the DR and HP of a representative ship?

Icelander mentions flintlock musket damage of 4d+2 pi++. By comparison, what would be ballpark damage stats for cannons on a ship like the 98-gun ship of the line that you mention? And again, ballpark DR and HP of the ship itself?

"Get out your books and look it up" would be an understandable answer. : ) I ask only because I'd like to be sure I'm looking at the same sort of examples you are.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by tbone

Icelander mentions flintlock musket damage of 4d+2 pi++. By comparison, what would be ballpark damage stats for cannons on a ship like the 98-gun ship of the line that you mention? And again, ballpark DR and HP of the ship itself?

6dx4 pi++ for 12-lb cannon. 7dx4 pi++ for 18-lb cannon. 6dx5 pi++ for 24-lb to 42-lb cannon.

GURPS stats a small frigate with DR 6 and HP 268†. Nothing heavier has been statted, but using the same system as these stats were derived with would yield DR 8 or so*, maybe up to DR 10-12 for the largest examples if a GURPS author feels like breaking with precedent and allowing ship DR to count, but for previously statted ships, DR goes up very slowly with ship size for some unknown reason. It would have HP from 300-500†, depending on size.

*Which is not enough, just like DR 6 is generally not enough for the frigate.

[jacobmuller]

I like the extended pi chart; the 24lb cannon is pi+6 and the 42lb pi+8.
Then SM is a penalty to pi. With Injury Tolerance Unliving, that would put the musket at pi-5, 24lb pi- and 42lb pi+. If all three average 16 damage, you get injury 2, 8** and 24** - a lot more believable than all doing 32 Injury:D

I hadn't seen the idea about ignoring Injuries < 10% HP. Sounds nice but then the 268HP Frigate* would be able to ignore the 24lb and more than half the 42lb hits... Or would that be more realistic? Perhaps injury<5%?
*is that the revised (square root) figure?
Edit: due to brain hiccups I forgot the *5 to damage (surreal). But I've a ballpark revised HP value: 1600... With Icelanders suggested DR24 it should be 40 and 120 HP. I think I prefer the modified DR vs ignore <10% injury if using modified HP. One way or Another

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by jacobmuller

I like the extended pi chart; the 24lb cannon is pi+6 and the 42lb pi+8.
Then SM is a penalty to pi. With Injury Tolerance Unliving, that would put the musket at pi-5, 24lb pi- and 42lb pi+. If all three average 16 damage, you get injury 2, 8 and 24 - a lot more believable than all doing 32 Injury:D

I hadn't seen the idea about ignoring Injuries < 10% HP. Sounds nice but then the 268HP Frigate* would be able to ignore the 24lb and more than half the 42lb hits... Or would that be more realistic? Perhaps injury<5%?
*is that the revised (square root) figure?

The HP for the frigate is the RAW, not revised.

Note that cannon damage is more than 16 HPs, so even if you were using a rule which allowed for ignoring hits of less than 10%, the frigate wouldn't ignore hits from them.

If we coupled a system like this with giving warships DR in line with the actual thickness of their hulls, it could go a long way toward fixing things without introducing too much extra comlexity.

Ships of the line ought to have DR 24-30, with frigates at least having DR 12.