How decisive should each combat round be in terms of HP loss/healing?

[System Ufera]

(Copied and pasted from another thread I started over at the WOTC forums, after realizing that no one over there was ever going to read the thread.)

Hello everyone! Another question regarding the design of games in order to help me make my own system better: How decisive should each round of combat be in terms of HP loss/regaining? As in, for each round of combat, how much damage should be dealt by any given character, or, for healers, how much HP should be healed per round?

I ask this because I'm designing my own system for a Pen and Paper RPG. During playtesting, I've noticed that each round of combat is very "decisive" in terms of damage and healing. The players who have played more damage-oriented characters usually one-hit-kill the average enemy on a normal hit, and of course crits (usually double damage, sometimes even more) just get ridiculous. The same goes in the opposite direction, too, though to a lesser degree; most players have found themselves in desperate need of healing after being hit once by a similarly damage-oriented enemy. And, of course, the characters who were optimized toward healing were capable of (usually) completely healing the wounded characters with a single check, except of course for situations with bad rolls, and even then, they didn't do too badly.

Perhaps it's just because I'm accustomed to DnD, but this seems a bit... ridiculous. Before I try to make any changes or explain the system, however, I just want to explain that the purpose of this thread is simply to try to get an idea of how decisive each round of combat should ideally be; if and when that is determined, only then will the discussion move on to the actual changes, if any, that need to be made.

 

[timASW]

(Copied and pasted from another thread I started over at the WOTC forums, after realizing that no one over there was ever going to read the thread.)

Hello everyone! Another question regarding the design of games in order to help me make my own system better: How decisive should each round of combat be in terms of HP loss/regaining? As in, for each round of combat, how much damage should be dealt by any given character, or, for healers, how much HP should be healed per round?

I ask this because I'm designing my own system for a Pen and Paper RPG. During playtesting, I've noticed that each round of combat is very "decisive" in terms of damage and healing. The players who have played more damage-oriented characters usually one-hit-kill the average enemy on a normal hit, and of course crits (usually double damage, sometimes even more) just get ridiculous. The same goes in the opposite direction, too, though to a lesser degree; most players have found themselves in desperate need of healing after being hit once by a similarly damage-oriented enemy. And, of course, the characters who were optimized toward healing were capable of (usually) completely healing the wounded characters with a single check, except of course for situations with bad rolls, and even then, they didn't do too badly.

Perhaps it's just because I'm accustomed to DnD, but this seems a bit... ridiculous. Before I try to make any changes or explain the system, however, I just want to explain that the purpose of this thread is simply to try to get an idea of how decisive each round of combat should ideally be; if and when that is determined, only then will the discussion move on to the actual changes, if any, that need to be made.

i like an easy battle to be 2-3 rounds a mediocre one to be 4-5 and a big important one to go 6-7. if that helps

 

[RangerWickett]

I have a sense williamking4 is spam. However.

Introduction.
Rising Action.
Climax.

If I'm running a combat, I want each to take about 10 to 20 minutes of play time. I don't care how many rounds occur during that time. I just want the combat to be resolved within an hour. The simpler the combat system, the more rounds you can have.

 

[Asmor]

At the risk of perhaps going a bit tangential, I think the secret here is to find the goal first, and then work your way backwards.

Using D&D 4e as an example, the designers decided that an average enemy should take about 4 attacks from a player of the same level to be killed.

That means once you know the average damage of a player of that level, you also know what a monster's hit points at that level should be.

This is really something that you need to decide based on your system. What kind of feel do you want to achieve?

 

[Stormonu]

25% loss per round, no more than 15% healing per round. You can then scale the damage based on the HP totals you want.

 

[Bluenose]

How important is this particular fight? If it's a trivial one, I'm happy for it to be decided in one roll or pair of rolls. If it's more important, give me 20% each exchange, more if one side rolls unexpectedly well and the other badly.

 

[steenan]

A lot depends on what the stakes are.

If each combat is a life or death matter, they should be long enough for the players to have a chance to reconsider and run when things look grim. This means at least about 4 rounds if your game uses D&D-like round structure.

If the stakes are typically lower, they may be decided significantly quicker. Unexpected defeats are not a problem because they introduce complications (interesting), not randomly remove characters from play.


Another matter is the amount of tactics you want in combat. If it is not tactical, it may be resolved in a single roll. If you want tactics, give each player 3 to 5 significant decision points. Not too many, though. If a combat is too long, either it becomes repeatable and boring (because there is not enough interesting options to fill it) or players are overwhelmed with available options.

 

[jasper]

It depends on how the game handles instant or near instant dead and raise dead.

 

[CroBob]

For starters, it really depends on the feel you're going for, so I'm going to share my personal preference, since I have nothing better to go on.

Damage dealing; I think that in one round, or it's equivalent for your system, if everybody or everything on one side attacks the weakest member of the opposition, then that target should probably be dropped if everyone, or almost everyone, hits. I think this because it allows for a real sense of danger and forces at least some strategy, but allows for decent strategies to be used to avoid such things if the players work as a team. This can be modified depending on how much damage directing and mitigation each side has.

Healing; Healing should matter, but it should not entirely invalidate what each side of the combat is doing. For this reason average healing should be able to heal more than a single, average attack could deal, but not as much as each side deals out as a whole. Of course, how resources are managed is also relevant. If a character can heal every single round without worrying about running out of healing, then they should probably heal about as much as an attack could deal. That turns healing more into damage redirecting than anything else, allowing for damage to be spread out among the group instead of piled onto one target constantly. If the resources are very limited, like a once per fight deal and no more healing beyond that, then it should be able to heal more than what the opposition is dealing each round.

 

[S'mon]

IMO:
For something like D&D 4e which is focused on tactical combat, a damage-oriented PC (Striker) should do about 1/2 a typical foe's hp in damage with a typical attack sequence, for 4e that might mean an Encounter power. I get this in 4e by halving monster hp. A crit should sometimes kill/drop a typical foe with one hit. Elite (PC-equivalent) damage-oriented monsters should have similar damage potential vs non-tank PCs, or slightly less (1/3 hp, 2/3 on crit).

For other monsters, a typical monster should do about 1/6-1/4 a PC's hp with a typical hit; a damage-oriented monster about 1/4-1/3 of PC's hp.