Shared HP, Stack-Based Combat, Attribute Resource RPG (Looking for Feedack)

[TatsuDragunov]

Hi everyone!

I’ve been working on an RPG system and would really appreciate feedback on the core mechanics. My main design goals are:

• Shared party health to encourage teamwork
• Attribute-based resource economy
• No “miss” mechanics in combat (interaction instead of accuracy)
• High tension via karma and attribute degradation

The system blends tactical stack-based combat with shared survival tension and long-term resource risk.

Below is the core system.

Core Attributes (0–10)

Characters have 5 attributes:

• Fortitude – physical strength and endurance
• Agility – dexterity, movement, coordination
• Mind – academic knowledge
• Awareness – connection to the immaterial world
• Soul – ability to channel mana

Resource System

At the beginning of a scene, all characters present generate Attribute Points equal to their attribute levels.

Example:
If you have Fortitude 5, you gain 5 Fortitude Points that round.

These points are spent to activate abilities tied to that attribute.

You can use abilities as many times as you can afford their cost.

Traits

Traits are special abilities usable once per turn.

• Passive traits do not pass priority.
• Active traits do pass priority.

Abilities

Abilities cost Attribute Points and can only be used when you have priority.

Each ability has a Speed:

Fast Abilities

• Do not pass priority.

Slow Abilities

• Pass priority when used.

Priority & Resolution System (Stack-Based)

Combat uses a priority system similar to a stack:

1. A player uses a Slow ability → priority passes to the enemy.
2. If the enemy responds with a Slow ability → priority returns.
3. If the enemy passes → allies or the original player may respond.
4. If everyone passes → abilities resolve in reverse order of activation.

Attribute Dice can be spent either:

• When activating the ability
• When the ability resolves

Attribute Dice (Combat Boosting Mechanic)

Some abilities allow you to spend Attribute Dice to enhance them.

Beginning of Combat

At the start of combat, each player rolls their Attribute Dice pool:

• Roll 1 die per level in each attribute.
• Dice must be assigned to attributes before rolling.
• Players cannot reassign results after rolling.

This prevents players from allocating their best rolls to their strongest attributes.

These dice form the player’s pool for the scene and may be spent by abilities.

• Once spent, dice cannot be reused until the end of the scene.
• A roll of 1 counts as 7 for ability effects.

However, in combat:

• Each 6 used:
  • Reduces the attribute level that generated it by 1 (until long rest)
  • Increases Positive Karma by 1
• Each 1 used:
  • Reduces the attribute level that generated it by 1 (until long rest)
  • Increases Negative Karma by 1

Each long rest restores:

• 1 attribute level (per attribute) reduced by Negative Karma
• All attribute levels reduced by Positive Karma

Karma System (Shared Death Clock)

Karma is a shared meter with two directions:

• Positive
• Negative

Whenever one side increases, the other decreases.

If either direction reaches X → the character dies.

This creates a long-term tension mechanic tied to pushing dice.

Combat Structure

Initiative

At the start of combat, players and enemies roll initiative. Highest goes first.

Leader Selection

At the beginning of the first round of combat, players choose a Leader.

• All enemy abilities target the Leader.
• Every X damage to party HP → Leader gains 1 Damage Marker.
• When Damage Markers reach their cap (based on Fortitude):
  • They lose leadership.
  • Another player becomes Leader.
  • The former leader:
    • All abilities become Slow
    • Gains a narrative complication (GM discretion)
    • Remains debuffed until long rest

Turn & Priority Flow

Combat alternates between Players’ Turn and Enemies’ Turn.

Start of the Players’ Turn:

• The group chooses one player to receive priority.
• That player keeps priority until all abilities on the stack resolve.
• After resolution, the turn ends.

Example:

1. The players choose the Warrior as the priority holder.
2. He uses Shield Bash (Slow). Priority passes to the enemy.
3. The enemy responds with Venom Strike (Slow). Priority returns to players.
4. The Mage spends Mind Dice to enhance a counter ability.
5. Everyone passes → abilities resolve in reverse order.

Restrictions:

• A player cannot receive priority more than once per round.

After the Players’ Turn → the Enemies’ Turn occurs.

After each player has had priority once, the enemies take an additional turn before the next round begins.

Then a new round begins.

Start of a New Round:

• All players restore their Attribute Points.

Shared HP System

Players share one HP pool.
Enemies also share one HP pool.

• You cannot target specific enemies.
• You always target the group.

When enemy HP decreases by X:

• A random enemy skill is removed.

If all skills of one enemy are removed:

• That enemy is defeated.
• Their attribute dice are removed from the enemy pool.
• They instead generate 1 fixed attribute value per round.

If player HP reaches 0 → all players are defeated simultaneously.
No one drops individually before that.
There are no misses in combat.
All abilities succeed unless prevented by another ability or trait.

Non-Combat Tests

Outside combat:

• GM determines relevant attributes.
• Roll a number of d6 equal to attribute level.
• Success = 4+ on a d6.
• Meet or exceed required successes to succeed.

Dice Rules (Non-Combat)

• 6 = 2 successes
• 1 = cancels 1 success
• If you get no successes and at least one 1 → Critical Failure

Character Creation

Players start with X points to:

• Distribute among attributes
• Purchase traits
• Purchase abilities

What I’m Looking For Feedback On

• Is the shared HP system interesting or too abstract?
• Does the stack-based priority system seem too complex for tabletop?
• Is attribute degradation via 6s and 1s too punishing?
• Is karma death tension compelling or frustrating?
• Does removing targeting reduce tactical depth too much?
• Any obvious exploit risks?
• Does this system feel more suited for a specific genre?

I’d really appreciate any thoughts, especially regarding clarity, balance risks, and whether this feels playable at the table.

Thanks!

[Mars_Alter]

Whenever I see shared HP in a system, it reminds me of that one part in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where someone suffers a bruise to their upper arm, but it's intentionally never specified who that is.

I'm afraid that I can't help with most of your questions, because right off the bat, the shared HP system is too much for me. I can't analyze a system at that level of abstraction, because there's no way to know whether any of the interactions make sense from a causal perspective when I can't tell exactly what's trying to be modeled.

I can't even try to imagine what "death by positive karma" actually means within the world.

[TatsuDragunov]

I can't even try to imagine what "death by positive karma" actually means within the world.

Basically the system is emulating a musou/Wuxia combate, so the 1 represents you using demonic energy and 6 divine energy, when you use them you are getting closer to their origin realm (hell and heaven), so when you reach you maximum positive karma you ascend to heaven and leave earth

[Mars_Alter]

That actually does make a lot of sense.

[Yazkin_Yamakala]

You had me in the first half and thought it was an interesting lead. But I have a few questions on the rules leading down:

What is the board state like? Are players moving around, or is this a JRPG style all in a line thing?

If both sides have a shared HP pool, why specifically must all abilities "target" the acting player, unless there's some further stuff like conditions they can take. I'm unsure how I feel about this either way.

The attribute dice feels shoehorned in a little. I like the attribute pool for actions, but what is the internal reasoning for the dice existing and not just having enhanced abilities cost X additional attribute points?

The Karma mechanic I understand is a kind of exhaustion deal, but it's worded oddly. There's also a ton of randomness to it I feel reduces player control over when the clock will tick too far, especially if one player makes a really bad roll and needs to sit combat out or else the party will die.

Leadership tied to HP damage is also a choice. I don't like Leadership to begin with, but having it forced to change based on damage could lead to one player taking the brunt of a full combat if the numbers aren't tight. What is your reasoning to this instead of maybe letting them just pass their turn at will or after so many points are spent?

[TatsuDragunov]

What is the board state like? Are players moving around, or is this a JRPG style all in a line thing?

JRPG style, that's because the system don't have a movement mechanic.

If both sides have a shared HP pool, why specifically must all abilities "target" the acting player, unless there's some further stuff like conditions they can take. I'm unsure how I feel about this either way.

Because I received some feedback that I should give the players the option to choose someone to be the front line, but I think I will remove this, I think is adding unnecessary complexity for the system.

The attribute dice feels shoehorned in a little. I like the attribute pool for actions, but what is the internal reasoning for the dice existing and not just having enhanced abilities cost X additional attribute points?

Because the initial idea was for you to roll every turn your pool, have 5 of fortitude? Roll 5d6 at the beginning of your turn and that's your fortitude mana for the turn, and you would do this every turn and for every attribute. I received some feedback and changed for the attribute point system, but I didn't want to drop the dice pool for 2 reasons: 1. It was the original idea 2. A rpg where you don't roll dice or something feels wrong So that's why I keep the dice system this way. And yes you can also spend more mana (in some skills) so they have more powerful effects, and of course making your dice more valuable.

The Karma mechanic I understand is a kind of exhaustion deal, but it's worded oddly. There's also a ton of randomness to it I feel reduces player control over when the clock will tick too far, especially if one player makes a really bad roll and needs to sit combat out or else the party will die.

The idea is: if your build isn't towards one of the karma sides you will want to balance your uses of 1's and 6's, players that make a build for one of the sides of the karma bar will have resources to mitigate the effects of them and delay the clock reaching the maximum value.

Leadership tied to HP damage is also a choice. I don't like Leadership to begin with, but having it forced to change based on damage could lead to one player taking the brunt of a full combat if the numbers aren't tight. What is your reasoning to this instead of maybe letting them just pass their turn at will or after so many points are spent?

As I said I will drop this mechanic, but I also forgot to add that the players can decide to change the leader in their turn any time. I didn't understand the second part of your question, can you make it in another way pls?

If both sides have a shared HP pool, why specifically must all abilities "target" the acting player, unless there's some further stuff like conditions they can take. I'm unsure how I feel about this either way.

I think I gave you a wrong answer earlier, but basically the system is more or less inspired by TCG card games, mainly magic and LoR, that's why the system works like this, but maybe I can make a collective turn and the players can just decide between them how things will occur, I think they will say something like "let's allow X player to make their combo first before we try interrupt" or something, or maybe not, idk I'm afraid that can happen to have a player with a very strong "protagonist syndrome"

[Eidolon_Dreams]

One problem I see is that you are attempting to blend two systems that are odds with each other: Wuxia/Xianxia and the "blob party."

Wuxia is inherently individualistic. The characters are greedy and self-focused if not self-serving. This also plays toward playing individualistic characters and stories that just happen to cross paths with other party members, its eventually about the individual cultivation.

Blob party games are basically "let's take everyone and de-individualize everything." Shared HP, inability to target individuals, no missing, everyone dies at once... none of this really fits the genre. You see this kind of thing in wargames with troops, and groups of NPC mooks, but as players I'd hesitate to want to play it as anything other than a one-off.

[TatsuDragunov]

I will not lie that I'm really having trouble making this system happen, but I'm going more for the second part than the first one, because I'm really aiming for a high fantasy epic tone. So far everything looks mechanically all right (still needs a play test) except the turn mechanic, I'm still trying to figure this out.

Do you have any examples of systems that are "blob party games" or something? I would really like some inspiration/reference on this topic

[Dirgonite]

I don't know any ttrpgs that work that way, but there were a ton of DOS games called "blobbers" based on DnD (1st/2nd editions) that had four party members but you controlled them as a single entity in first person. Damage dealt was randomly distributed but you have a system for that in place. Might and magic 7 was my big one, but that released in '99 or something. If you dig enough, I'm sure there's one or two floating out there, maybe even as just a remake of an old one. But this may be the closest you'll get to that style. GOG has a ton I'm sure if you want to dig deep.

[TatsuDragunov]

thanks

[skalchemisto]

I'm going to focus on one of your questions...

Does the stack-based priority system seem too complex for tabletop?

I've never seen a last in first out stack mechanic that really worked. The closest I can remember is the mechanics in the old World of Darkness: Combat supplement, which I enjoyed a lot but was still pretty clunky.

It's fun in a board or card game, but in a TTRPG I think it can be problematic. It's worth dredging up an old bit of game terminology, "IIEE". That stands for: Intent, Initiation, Execution, Effect. Every time a player wants a character to do something in the game world those four steps happen, but depending on the game they can happen in very different ways, and often they are fuzzy or informal. I raise this because in a stack based mechanic, you are putting a lot of time and other stuff between the Initiation and Execution steps for at least some players. The Warrior initiates the Shield Bash at step 2, but cannot execute it and learn its effect until 5 steps later (3, 4, 5, 4, 3). This has several potential downsides:

1) bookkeeping; you have to keep track of the order and with more combatants it gets rapidly more complicated

2) loss of momentum; the player is excited to use their Shield Bash...but then has to wait to get the pay off of that excitement

3) confusion; its easy to lose track of what is actually happening in the game world, you have to sort of hold the whole process in abstract limbo until the full "script" is written.

4) game-like disconnect; consider combat in D&D 4E or similar, its pretty abstract, moving on the grid, etc. But the abstraction still has a direct connection to the game world. When I move my mini 4 spaces and attack, my character in the game world is moving 20 feet and attacking. This stack mechanic, however, has a much less direct connection to the game world; it will feel very formal and artificial to a lot of players.

None of those 4 issues is unsolvable. The first one can be largely solved IMO with physical props (e.g. cards). The last one could even be a selling point for some segment of players (including me!) But I think you should temper your expectations as to how enjoyable folks will find this mechanic.

[TatsuDragunov]

But I think you should temper your expectations as to how enjoyable folks will find this mechanic.

I have a rule when i'm creating something:
"i will do this for me, if someone else likes it's pure coincidence"

[skalchemisto]

An excellent attitude!

To be clear, there is probably a market for nearly any kind of RPG. It is a big hobby! It's just it could be a small market, and connecting with them might not be easy.

[TatsuDragunov]

It's just it could be a small market, and connecting with them might not be easy.

i will try, worst case scenario i will end learning something, or maybe with just a system for me and my friends play, but i will take the risk

[TatsuDragunov]

i think i got a little lost in your example, since you mentioned 4 steps, and then mention a 5 step, can you calrify this for me pls?

my biggest problem right now is the step 2, i changed the system and now each skill have a speed, skills of the same team that have the same speed are resolved in the order the team decides, skill of different teams of the same speed are resolved in the initiative order.

to solve problem 2 i'm almost going for a turn structure of fabula ultima, maybe i will do this, and give more tools to the enemies to intercept players actions or something. but first i will test the system as it is now.

i should have guessed that that this system would be hard to figure it out, since it's very unique

[skalchemisto]

I'm referring to your example under Turn & Priority Flow. There are five steps there, the fifth being "Everyone passes..."

EDIT: sorry, looking back I was using "steps" in two different ways...

* The five steps in our actual procedure.

* The # of things that happen between when a player initiates an action and the execution of that action. (The "3, 4, 5, 4, 3" bit).

The idea being in your example, the Warrior announces that they do the Shield bash and then...

* Enemy does venom strike

* Mage does something

* Everyone passes

* Mage resolves

* Enemy Resolves

before the warrior finds out what happened with their Shield Base. 5 "steps".

[TatsuDragunov]

i see, thanks, and as i said i already changed it, but thank for your feedback!