-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
How decisive should each combat round be in terms of HP loss/healing?
- Thread starter System Ufera
- Start date
Impossible to say - in one combat, a huge hit or well rolled damage from a powerful spell can necessitate a lot of healing in one round, while in round 2, you could have some bad rolls and no healing is needed. A combat that is not supposed to be critical, can turn deadly with just a few good rolls from the DM, while one that is climactic can be easy if the PCs get a few good rolls and/or the DM has some bad rolls.
System Ufera
First Post
Sorry about the lack of input on my part... IIRC, after I posted the original post of this thread, I got sick, and my internet connection went down... basically, a bad case of life happened. I came on to the forums to post something else, and now that I remember, I'll post here beforehand, so I don't forget again.
So I've been looking over the posts by all of you, and while your input is helpful, I'm not so certain how I'm going to actually apply your advice. Basically, the game's damage system is designed so that the choice of weapon used or spell cast has a far greater impact on the amount and type of damage dealt than in other systems; in order to achieve this, a weapon has a damage die size assigned to it (like in most games), but instead of rolling the die once and adding a static modifier, you roll the die a number of times determined by your modifier divided by 2 (though there are still some static modifiers added afterward). Say for example you're a melee warrior type, and you're at level 1. You're armed with a longsword, which in my game has a damage die of 1d6. Most level 1 melee warriors will want a Strength score of at least 30, giving a modifier of 6, though less is acceptable for niche builds. Given this and only this information, when you attack, assuming you hit, you'll be dealing 3d6 damage to your target.
As stated before, this system is designed to make one's weapon choice really count; larger weapons will have a larger die (and if they're two handed, an extra die will be rolled), but they'll take more effort to swing, meaning most axe- or hammer-wielders will be stuck making only one attack per turn normally. Smaller weapons will have smaller dice, and light weapons (the equivalent of off-hand) will have one less die, being the opposite of 2H weapons, but they'll be easier to attack with, meaning two or more attacks per turn won't be too hard to achieve.
Before I forget, I want to mention average HP values. Going back to the example of level 1, the very least a character can have for total HP is 12, and that's not just by having minimum Constitution, but actually applying racial penalties to Constitution. Without the racial penalties, the lowest a character can have is 18. The average melee warrior will be able to afford a constitution of 25, making his HP 30, and then add benefits (this game's name for "feats" or "perks") afterward to increase his HP further. In case you're wondering, HP derives from Constitution by multiplying the Constitution Modifier by the character's level (1-10) and then adding the Constitution score itself to the result. The modifier of an attribute is determined by dividing the attribute by 5, rounding down. So, as mentioned, a Constitution of 25 will give you ((5 * 1) + 25) = 30 HP; the same Constitution at level 2 will give you ((5 * 2) + 25) = 35 HP, and if you increase it to 30 at level 2, your HP will be ((6 * 2) + 30) = 42. Every part of a character, aside from equipment, is bought with experience, rather than increased at intervals like in DnD, so increasing Constitution (or anything) is just a matter of spending the XP. After that, the average benefit to increase HP increases HP in increments of 5; there are two such benefits, and without looking at them, I think they each have 3 ranks, for a total of 15 HP or 30 if both are taken.
One of the reasons I created this thread was because, as I said, the damage to HP ratio seemed a bit high, but more important is a result of that very same thing. That is, how many of you have played any standard JRPG's, like Final Fantasy? You all know how, in those games, spells to inflict status effects are useless for the player, right? The average enemy goes down so fast that giving them debuffs is a waste of not only your ability to cast spells (MP and such), but also the very turn dedicated to casting the spell, which could have instead been used to kill the enemy outright; meanwhile, the bosses, for which status effects would actually be useful, are usually immune to status effects anyway. I want debuffs to be a legitimate option in my game, instead of being the overlooked feature that's only there to provide flavor and fill out the list of options.
So I've been looking over the posts by all of you, and while your input is helpful, I'm not so certain how I'm going to actually apply your advice. Basically, the game's damage system is designed so that the choice of weapon used or spell cast has a far greater impact on the amount and type of damage dealt than in other systems; in order to achieve this, a weapon has a damage die size assigned to it (like in most games), but instead of rolling the die once and adding a static modifier, you roll the die a number of times determined by your modifier divided by 2 (though there are still some static modifiers added afterward). Say for example you're a melee warrior type, and you're at level 1. You're armed with a longsword, which in my game has a damage die of 1d6. Most level 1 melee warriors will want a Strength score of at least 30, giving a modifier of 6, though less is acceptable for niche builds. Given this and only this information, when you attack, assuming you hit, you'll be dealing 3d6 damage to your target.
As stated before, this system is designed to make one's weapon choice really count; larger weapons will have a larger die (and if they're two handed, an extra die will be rolled), but they'll take more effort to swing, meaning most axe- or hammer-wielders will be stuck making only one attack per turn normally. Smaller weapons will have smaller dice, and light weapons (the equivalent of off-hand) will have one less die, being the opposite of 2H weapons, but they'll be easier to attack with, meaning two or more attacks per turn won't be too hard to achieve.
Before I forget, I want to mention average HP values. Going back to the example of level 1, the very least a character can have for total HP is 12, and that's not just by having minimum Constitution, but actually applying racial penalties to Constitution. Without the racial penalties, the lowest a character can have is 18. The average melee warrior will be able to afford a constitution of 25, making his HP 30, and then add benefits (this game's name for "feats" or "perks") afterward to increase his HP further. In case you're wondering, HP derives from Constitution by multiplying the Constitution Modifier by the character's level (1-10) and then adding the Constitution score itself to the result. The modifier of an attribute is determined by dividing the attribute by 5, rounding down. So, as mentioned, a Constitution of 25 will give you ((5 * 1) + 25) = 30 HP; the same Constitution at level 2 will give you ((5 * 2) + 25) = 35 HP, and if you increase it to 30 at level 2, your HP will be ((6 * 2) + 30) = 42. Every part of a character, aside from equipment, is bought with experience, rather than increased at intervals like in DnD, so increasing Constitution (or anything) is just a matter of spending the XP. After that, the average benefit to increase HP increases HP in increments of 5; there are two such benefits, and without looking at them, I think they each have 3 ranks, for a total of 15 HP or 30 if both are taken.
One of the reasons I created this thread was because, as I said, the damage to HP ratio seemed a bit high, but more important is a result of that very same thing. That is, how many of you have played any standard JRPG's, like Final Fantasy? You all know how, in those games, spells to inflict status effects are useless for the player, right? The average enemy goes down so fast that giving them debuffs is a waste of not only your ability to cast spells (MP and such), but also the very turn dedicated to casting the spell, which could have instead been used to kill the enemy outright; meanwhile, the bosses, for which status effects would actually be useful, are usually immune to status effects anyway. I want debuffs to be a legitimate option in my game, instead of being the overlooked feature that's only there to provide flavor and fill out the list of options.
CroBob
First Post
Well, I'm designing a game right now, too, so I won't share exactly how I'm dealing with buffs and debuffs, but I do have at least this one awesome suggestion;
List every aspect of player abilities or potential abilities, buff and debuff-wise, and give it a meta-game value. That is, that value won't be seen in game, but it's how you determine if a particular thing is worth it, behind the scenes. For example (the exact mechanics are purely for the sake of the hypothetical), if we simply assume that poisons do 1 damage per round until saved against , and your average combatant's attack will do 8 damage per round (after figuring for hit/miss, crits, and any other applicable variables), then we can see that the poison is only worth 1/8 what a normal attack is worth, but then we also have to consider if it only works on the first attack, plus it can be saved against and so is less reliable than raw weapon damage. Further, such a use will assuredly not scale with level, giving it a depreciating value on your list.
Exactly what values you end up with depends on your system entirely, but you get the point. I've worked my system so that poisons are almost as effective as a single attack, so I can balance their use against a single, unmodified attack, when working on balancing things out. I had a lot of ideas for buffs and debuffs, but, ultimately, I didn't keep the ones that wouldn't be worth using, and modified the ones that might be worth using until I knew they would be, so I can appreciate someone else trying basically the same thing. This value system I'm working on (and constantly tweaking) makes designing the game significantly easier, since I can just design character abilities to be worth so much and then basically just buy the effects with the value costs.
If only I can finally sit down and write up the in-game economy! Every time I do, I start looking up real life values for certain things to compare prices, and I wind up on tvtropes somehow, and then I'm done for the day!
List every aspect of player abilities or potential abilities, buff and debuff-wise, and give it a meta-game value. That is, that value won't be seen in game, but it's how you determine if a particular thing is worth it, behind the scenes. For example (the exact mechanics are purely for the sake of the hypothetical), if we simply assume that poisons do 1 damage per round until saved against , and your average combatant's attack will do 8 damage per round (after figuring for hit/miss, crits, and any other applicable variables), then we can see that the poison is only worth 1/8 what a normal attack is worth, but then we also have to consider if it only works on the first attack, plus it can be saved against and so is less reliable than raw weapon damage. Further, such a use will assuredly not scale with level, giving it a depreciating value on your list.
Exactly what values you end up with depends on your system entirely, but you get the point. I've worked my system so that poisons are almost as effective as a single attack, so I can balance their use against a single, unmodified attack, when working on balancing things out. I had a lot of ideas for buffs and debuffs, but, ultimately, I didn't keep the ones that wouldn't be worth using, and modified the ones that might be worth using until I knew they would be, so I can appreciate someone else trying basically the same thing. This value system I'm working on (and constantly tweaking) makes designing the game significantly easier, since I can just design character abilities to be worth so much and then basically just buy the effects with the value costs.
If only I can finally sit down and write up the in-game economy! Every time I do, I start looking up real life values for certain things to compare prices, and I wind up on tvtropes somehow, and then I'm done for the day!
Last edited:
GloriousMess
First Post
I personally see nothing wrong with a high damage-per-attack to health ratio, as I've experienced a few games that have this from the outset, namely Milennium's End and Warhammer 40,000. The former is insanely vicious and deadly, to the point where one bullet in the head is a likely character kill and anywhere else is anything from a flesh wound to a crippling injury. It's not too difficult to hit a target either, so the major factors in combat deadliness are availability of weapons and the clever use of tactics and cover.
Warhammer 40,000 throws you in with around 12 wounds and guns that do anything from 1d10+2 to 5d10+10 damage. Given that it uses a d100 system and you need to roll below your 30-to-40-on-average stats to hit, a bad choice of action can be fatal. Space Marines are tougher but they're Space Marines so that's fine.
I'd say stick with a deadlier combat system if you want, but adjust the rules so that it's either difficult to hit, or armour is very good, or cover makes a lot of difference, or there are ways to negate an attack (parry? dodge? bluff?) that most characters can do. Likewise don't make a forgiving combat system without catering for varying power levels, otherwise all combats will take ages and drag on. D&D was like that for our group at times and it's not very fun.
Warhammer 40,000 throws you in with around 12 wounds and guns that do anything from 1d10+2 to 5d10+10 damage. Given that it uses a d100 system and you need to roll below your 30-to-40-on-average stats to hit, a bad choice of action can be fatal. Space Marines are tougher but they're Space Marines so that's fine.
I'd say stick with a deadlier combat system if you want, but adjust the rules so that it's either difficult to hit, or armour is very good, or cover makes a lot of difference, or there are ways to negate an attack (parry? dodge? bluff?) that most characters can do. Likewise don't make a forgiving combat system without catering for varying power levels, otherwise all combats will take ages and drag on. D&D was like that for our group at times and it's not very fun.
Zhaleskra
Adventurer
I'm a fan of death spirals because I have grown tired of systems not being able to handle specific injuries other than as HP loss. There are exceptions for where things like hit points are described in more exact terms "the connection between your spirit and your body", but even in those exceptions the specific injuries are covered. Sometimes I feel HP loss only systems make combats drag on for too long. As both a martial artist and a former theatrical combat performer, I have fully been trained in "it only takes one mistake to end your life". I feel that every single hit should have the potential to kill you instantly, that's kind of the point of weapons. Building off that, I'm starting not to like systems with "nonlethal/subdual" damage. Nonlethal as far as I'm concerned should come from holding back, and indeed is how several systems handle it.
I have no beef with people who prefer more HP oriented combat, the above are simply my preferences.
I have no beef with people who prefer more HP oriented combat, the above are simply my preferences.
MarkB
Legend
One thing to bear in mind if you go for a system with fewer rounds is that, in such a case, a couple of lucky rolls by the first couple of players may bring the combat to a close before the end of the first round, leaving lower-initiative characters with nothing to do.
That could get frustrating for their players, especially if the initiative system you're using tends to yield consistently similar turn orders.
That could get frustrating for their players, especially if the initiative system you're using tends to yield consistently similar turn orders.
CroBob
First Post
That's exactly the reason I prefer HPs. I don't want my games to be super realistic for realism's sake. HPs give you a buffer between "hit" and "dead". When it comes right down to it, many more attacks will be made at the PCs than any one of their enemies, making lethality apply more to them than their enemies. It's not fun to get attached to a character just to die in a single hit two combats in, especially if you didn't even get a round to take any actions in. Just because it's a die roll killing you instead of your GM simply saying "You die" doesn't make it any more fun.
It's even worse when you really get attached to a character 10-20-30 sessions into a campaign.