How many hit 'til you start dying?

[ExploderWizard]

Its an interesting question, but in order for it to have real meaning, all successful hits vs AC would need to be equal in value. If for example, it takes 4 or 5 hits to drop a typical fighter what difference would it make if those hits were from a kobold slinger vs a hill giant wielding a tree as a club?

The whole reason we have variable damage is that a hit isn't equal to every other hit.

 

[Pbartender]

To me, the character only gets hit in two situations. Once when first bloodied and again whenever reduced to 0 hit points.

As far as describing what happens in combat, all you need to add in is "critical hits" and I'm right there with you.


But staying on topic... It kind of depends.

On average, I'd say about a half dozen hits for adventurers and most ordinary monsters of an equivalent level. That puts them on pretty even footing.

If the enemy is a BBEG or a similar solo-style monster, I want more hits... Sometimes upwards of 20 or 30 hits, depending on the target's AC. Otherwise, the PCs (who outnumber the target 4 or 5 or 6 to 1), gang up on him and inevitably take him out in just a round or two of hits.

 

[diaglo]

How many successful normal hits (or failed saving throws) should the average character take before they go down?

Depending on edition, level, class, and type; the amount of hits (or failed saves) a character can take can be anywhere. This is caused by the number of HPs gained per level, the damage caused by hits, and the different systems use for the different types of hits.

i prefer 0 hp = dead.

but that just means i prefer OD&D(1974)

 

[genshou]

Your assumption that every hit equals physical damage is incorrect.

No it's not. Injury-based effects such as poison apply on every hit that deals damage, regardless of the "severity" of the blow. Every time you successfully deal damage, you have harmed your foe in some way. Fully avoiding an attack is covered by AC or saving throws. Avoiding getting impaled when the enemy does manage to hit you is covered by hit points.

 

[aurance]

No it's not. Injury-based effects such as poison apply on every hit that deals damage, regardless of the "severity" of the blow. Every time you successfully deal damage, you have harmed your foe in some way. Fully avoiding an attack is covered by AC or saving throws. Avoiding getting impaled when the enemy does manage to hit you is covered by hit points.

I think this is a different topic than the one OP is asking about.

I believe he's wondering about pacing of fights, in a mechanical sense, rather than a debate about hit point abstraction.

More directly, my answer to the OP is:

I also prefer about 4-5 hits. That seems like a nice range between "this fight takes too long" and "screwed by random numbers."

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think this is a different topic than the one OP is asking about.

I believe he's wondering about pacing of fights, in a mechanical sense, rather than a debate about hit point abstraction.

More directly, my answer to the OP is:

I also prefer about 4-5 hits. That seems like a nice range between "this fight takes too long" and "screwed by random numbers."

And my question would still be 4-5 hits from what? Would everyone have the same number of hits and deal the same damage? It might start to look like a rock, paper, scissors contest. First one to score 5 hits wins.

 

[aurance]

And my question would still be 4-5 hits from what? Would everyone have the same number of hits and deal the same damage? It might start to look like a rock, paper, scissors contest. First one to score 5 hits wins.

*shrug* Ballpark, average figure.

 

[Minigiant]

And my question would still be 4-5 hits from what? Would everyone have the same number of hits and deal the same damage? It might start to look like a rock, paper, scissors contest. First one to score 5 hits wins.

It's an estimate.
In certian editions/levels you'd be lucky to be standing after 2 weapon hits or spells blasts. In 4E, a first level character should be still laughing after two hits unless he's very unlucky. OHKO is near impossible.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm right there with you, Minigiant.

In fact, I've made Final Fantasy Zero with this idea firmly in mind: combats are supposed to last an average five rounds until one side depletes all of the other side's HP.

For me, it helps a narrative flow be achieved, with an intro, building action, and a climax, and that kind of narrative flow is essentially the best thing about RPG's to me.

It's a good "pace."

IMO, 4e has a few issues with hitting that pace well. It's true there's no real one or two hit kills, which is a very good thing, but it's also true that combats can drag very easily, taking 7, 10, even 15 rounds (though they may be decided in as few as 5, it takes that long just to sap HP). 4e PC's are also a bit swingy because of the Second Wind/healing surge mechanic that messes with the "number of hits" formula (making PC's take longer to kill for monsters, too).

Though no edition of D&D has gotten this perfect, really -- 4e errs on the side of long combat, 3e errs on the side of short combat. FFZ, I hope, hits the sweet spot more often than not (And when it doesn't, like in a boss battle, it should be WORTH it).

 

[Minigiant]

I'm right there with you, Minigiant.

In fact, I've made Final Fantasy Zero with this idea firmly in mind: combats are supposed to last an average five rounds until one side depletes all of the other side's HP.

For me, it helps a narrative flow be achieved, with an intro, building action, and a climax, and that kind of narrative flow is essentially the best thing about RPG's to me.

It's a good "pace."

IMO, 4e has a few issues with hitting that pace well. It's true there's no real one or two hit kills, which is a very good thing, but it's also true that combats can drag very easily, taking 7, 10, even 15 rounds (though they may be decided in as few as 5, it takes that long just to sap HP). 4e PC's are also a bit swingy because of the Second Wind/healing surge mechanic that messes with the "number of hits" formula (making PC's take longer to kill for monsters, too).

Though no edition of D&D has gotten this perfect, really -- 4e errs on the side of long combat, 3e errs on the side of short combat. FFZ, I hope, hits the sweet spot more often than not (And when it doesn't, like in a boss battle, it should be WORTH it).

My own homebrew RPG was purposely made to create a ~75% success rate on attacks and ~3-5 successful attacks to kill between equally matched opponents. If you attack someone of equal level 7 times, they will most likely die. And only tough characters get to 7.