PC hit rates and enemy damage output

[kibbitz]

Consider these three cases. Treat all of them as the final battle in your campaign, with the party at no less than 80% of their resources and at the highest level of power you expect to play to.

Case A: Lone BBEG tough enough to take on the entire party
Case B: Lone BBEG with assorted underlings which individually are lower in level than the party average
Case C: Enemy party, assume they are fighting their exact clones down to equipment, abilities and buffs.

For all cases, assume that the party is competent (not overoptimized monstrosities) with comparable equipment and no one has any special advantage, be it environment, positioning, buffing or whatnot.



Player or DM? Or both?
1) Are you mostly a player, mostly a DM or do you get to wear both hats a lot? Just want to see which side of the screen you're from, not sure if this changes anything though...

Hit Rate
2) What would be an ideal hit rate range using the party's strongest attacks against the entire range of different defences available for

• the lone BBEG in case A
• the supported BBEG in case B
• the underlings in case B
• a character fighting his exact clone in case C (ie, the armoured Knight vs the other armoured Knight)

3) Referring to 2d), do you feel that the hit rates should vary by class? What I mean is, if a Knight can hit his exact clone (down to buffs, abilities, equipment) 70% of the time, should a dual-wielding Ranger have around 70% chance of hitting his target Ranger as well?
4) Against an opponent of equal strength and even footing, is it acceptable for your best attacks to have a hit rate of much less than 50%? Please assume that they are supposed to beat the enemy in combat, and don't account for maneuvers that may increase the hit rates yet.
5) How long do you feel combat-relevant buffs should last?

Damage
6) Without using Save or Die type attacks, should it be possible to incapacitate or kill the toughest character by direct damage in one single action by

• the lone BBEG in case A,
• the supported BBEG in case B,
• the exact clone fighting the character in case C?

7) If (6) is not acceptable, would one full round of actions be acceptable?
8) If you found (6) OR (7) acceptable, how often do you feel that the BBEG or clone should be repeat this in one encounter?
9) Without using Save or Dies, should one single character be able to incapacitate or kill the lone BBEG in case A using direct damage in one action or one rounds worth of actions?
10) If your answer to (9), how much resources should be burned in such an attempt?

 

[Cadfan]

I'm not going to answer the whole survey because its long.

But I will add these details.

1. You didn't give this an edition tag. You shouldn't assume a lack of positioning or buffing advantages in 4e. Synergy is built into the system. They're part of the baseline. In 3e... you probably shouldn't assume a lack of positioning or buffing either, but the baseline is less defined.

2. Because you specified that its a final BBEG of a campaign, I'd want the hit rate to be higher than normal. I'd use enhanced hit points and improved saves to give survivability. This is because, in a climactic battle, I think its more fun for the players if they go 10 rounds of combat where all their special abilities work and its just barely enough, than for them to go 10 rounds of combat where their special abilities only work half the time. One is less frustrating than the other, even if they're equal in combat length.

 

[timbannock]

Sorry this won't address the whole of your post, but...

As far as damage, I personally never find a quick combat as the final combat of a campaign/story to be satisfying. I want the players to have to pull out some neat tactics, not just wail on the guy with full attacks. I want the badguy to use his sweet "special moves" and that NEVER includes a single roll that could immediately kill a PC.

Basically, every encounter I've had that's been climactic has also been fairly involved; 4-12 rounds. Anything less than that is either anti-climactic or was a battle that didn't matter much to the overall story.

The key is making the first couple rounds of EVERY SINGLE encounter feel like life-or-death. If it ends immediately after that, then so be it, but at least for those 2 rounds there was the nail-biting excitment of the Players just not knowing if they'll make it out or not.

 

[kibbitz]

Cadfan,

Thanks for answering.

I'm not going to answer the whole survey because its long.

And to think I was thinking of adding questions...

But I will add these details.

1. You didn't give this an edition tag. You shouldn't assume a lack of positioning or buffing advantages in 4e. Synergy is built into the system. They're part of the baseline. In 3e... you probably shouldn't assume a lack of positioning or buffing either, but the baseline is less defined.

I didn't tag an edition because I didn't feel that it was necessarily relevant. I've no experience with combat system design, so I may be way off. However, I am seeing the math as as

a+b=c

where

a = baseline based on internal factors (character passive bonuses, stats, equipment)
b = total bonuses from friendly buffs, positioning and enemy debuffing (that doesn't render it completely helpless, like Hold)
c = target hit rates for character under best possible condition, can exceed 100% to account for debuffing or the use of abilities that take penalties to hit to do increased damage or other effects

The rest depends on your perspective on the math as well as your gaming preferences. If I felt that a should be 40% and c 90%, that means the b is 50%. If I am running a low-powered magic campaign, this will also mean that the bulk of the 40% will have to be from everything but equipment, and the bulk of the 50% will have to come from positioning and possibly non-magical (de)buffs.

2. Because you specified that its a final BBEG of a campaign, I'd want the hit rate to be higher than normal. I'd use enhanced hit points and improved saves to give survivability. This is because, in a climactic battle, I think its more fun for the players if they go 10 rounds of combat where all their special abilities work and its just barely enough, than for them to go 10 rounds of combat where their special abilities only work half the time. One is less frustrating than the other, even if they're equal in combat length.

It's definitely more frustrating to miss half the time, which is why I expect final hit rates to typically exceed 50 or even 60%.

 

[kibbitz]

Sorry this won't address the whole of your post, but...

Hey, I'm already thankful that you're even taking the time to answer this

As far as damage, I personally never find a quick combat as the final combat of a campaign/story to be satisfying. I want the players to have to pull out some neat tactics, not just wail on the guy with full attacks. I want the badguy to use his sweet "special moves" and that NEVER includes a single roll that could immediately kill a PC.

I don't think any of us want a final battle which is just throwing out your strongest spells and busting out the full attacks every turn, but could you elaborate on some of these neat tactics that you wish present in a final battle, or provide an example?

Also, if the bad guy can't kill the PC in a single roll with damage, how bad should that sweet "special move" be if it's the biggest gun in his arsenal?

Basically, every encounter I've had that's been climactic has also been fairly involved; 4-12 rounds. Anything less than that is either anti-climactic or was a battle that didn't matter much to the overall story.

The key is making the first couple rounds of EVERY SINGLE encounter feel like life-or-death. If it ends immediately after that, then so be it, but at least for those 2 rounds there was the nail-biting excitment of the Players just not knowing if they'll make it out or not.

Understandable. However, how do you bring the feel of life-and-death struggle from the very beginning, especially if it's a lone BBEG?

 

[timbannock]

I don't think any of us want a final battle which is just throwing out your strongest spells and busting out the full attacks every turn, but could you elaborate on some of these neat tactics that you wish present in a final battle, or provide an example?

Also, if the bad guy can't kill the PC in a single roll with damage, how bad should that sweet "special move" be if it's the biggest gun in his arsenal?

Well, coming from a 4e mindset, I like the idea that every monster has its own little list of abilities with separate names and functions. Each maneuver is different, even if it's just from a "fluff" standpoint. I.e., instead of every animal having "bite/claw," they might have "rending tear," "clamping maw," "ravenous pincer" or whatever. Somehow those different names cause me to describe the attack very differently, which is good. I like adjectives ;-)

Aside from that, I also strive to give set-piece battles special "location-based maneuvers." To steal my favorite example, the White Dragon at the end of The Kobold Hall in the 4e DMG fights in a room with frozen pillars and icy pools. I added stalactites of ice that could be hit, and if they broke, would impale the person below them. There were also pools of ice that would flash freeze if a Cold attack hit the square; anyone in that square would be held fast unless they broke free. Fire attacks could melt or explode the icy pillars, causing a burst of icy shards in a few squares around the pillar (and reducing the pillar to rubble, giving rough terrain and some cover).

Stuff like that which the Players as well as the main badguy can use, and are just as effective as their normal suite of actions (sometimes moreso, for terrain that can only be used once).

Understandable. However, how do you bring the feel of life-and-death struggle from the very beginning, especially if it's a lone BBEG?

On the one hand, I generally shy away from save-or-die effects. Yet I try to make it seem like every struggle is life-or-death from the get go. How do you do that, you ask?

Well, start off with a big-time attack. Something not likely to kill, but that is likely to suck away A LOT of HP right off the bat. The attacks after might not be as powerful, but the players are already hurting.

Again, using 4e, the recharge mechanic does this well. The White Dragon's breath is DEADLY, but if the PCs can knock him down before it recharges, they are in a lot better shape. They know that dragon's breath is a recharge attack, so they know they have a time limit...but they don't know how long.

Lead off with a nasty attack, and save one more nasty one for later. Once you do this enough, the players expect it, and so they know it's only a matter of time before they get hit HARD again.

And, of course, I'm not afraid to drop a few characters from time to time (usually, I aim for at least one a session). If the fights swing in the players' favor, then they know every fight will be tough, but they can succeed. If they swing in my favor, they know that they are in DEEP TROUBLE, and they may not get out alive.

 

[kibbitz]

Thanks for explaining, neuronphaser!

 

[steenan]

I assume that we are talking about a gamist, combat-heavy system. In a combat-light game fights may be either faster and more lethal or less effective and lethal, depending on style. In realistic game hits should be rare, but much more damaging.

1. Mostly DM
2. a) 40-50%, b) 50-60%, c) 70-80%, d) 50-60%
3. Not necessary, but possible. Depends on the system specifics (how the weapon damage scales, how taking damage is handled and what "hitting" really means)
4. Depends. The values given above were for attacks against static defenses. If the defenses are rolled, hit rate may be lower. If very lethal weapons are used (incapacitating in 1-2 hits: modern firearms, lightsabers), they should be MUCH lower. On the other hand, if some kind of abstract "hitpoints" that represent dodges, not wounds, are used, there is no need for attack rolls and thus no "hit rates" at all.
5. Depends on their strength, stackability and ease of use. Strong, easy to get buffs should be active for a time between one attack and a third of the combat. Strong but very rare, hard to get or resource draining ones, as the weak ones, may last for the whole combat.
6. In all cases, no.
7. In cases a and b it may be possible, but only if the game mechanics allow the player to react somehow (sacrificing all his own attacks for a full defense, giving ground, spending some kind of resource to increase chances of survival) between the attacks. There should be no chance of offing a PC at full health if he does all he can to survive. On the other hand, it should be quite easy for the BBEG in case a to damage a PC hard enough to knock him back, cause penalties or in other way make him aware that "serious matters are discussed here".
8. In the only case I allow (that is, when the PC may defend somehow before all attacks land), no limit for number of uses.
9. No.
10. n/a

 

[kibbitz]

I assume that we are talking about a gamist, combat-heavy system. In a combat-light game fights may be either faster and more lethal or less effective and lethal, depending on style. In realistic game hits should be rare, but much more damaging.

Thanks for the feedback, steenan. I'm just hoping to learn a thing or two by looking at what different people expect/desire in terms of damage/hit output from their combat system.

1. Mostly DM
2. a) 40-50%, b) 50-60%, c) 70-80%, d) 50-60%
3. Not necessary, but possible. Depends on the system specifics (how the weapon damage scales, how taking damage is handled and what "hitting" really means)
4. Depends. The values given above were for attacks against static defenses. If the defenses are rolled, hit rate may be lower. If very lethal weapons are used (incapacitating in 1-2 hits: modern firearms, lightsabers), they should be MUCH lower. On the other hand, if some kind of abstract "hitpoints" that represent dodges, not wounds, are used, there is no need for attack rolls and thus no "hit rates" at all.
5. Depends on their strength, stackability and ease of use. Strong, easy to get buffs should be active for a time between one attack and a third of the combat. Strong but very rare, hard to get or resource draining ones, as the weak ones, may last for the whole combat.
6. In all cases, no.
7. In cases a and b it may be possible, but only if the game mechanics allow the player to react somehow (sacrificing all his own attacks for a full defense, giving ground, spending some kind of resource to increase chances of survival) between the attacks. There should be no chance of offing a PC at full health if he does all he can to survive. On the other hand, it should be quite easy for the BBEG in case a to damage a PC hard enough to knock him back, cause penalties or in other way make him aware that "serious matters are discussed here".
8. In the only case I allow (that is, when the PC may defend somehow before all attacks land), no limit for number of uses.
9. No.
10. n/a

Excellent points. I do have a few more questions:

3. Hitting would mean successfully performing an attack that causes the desired effect on the target. Thus, both striking a character for 6 damage and catching an enemy in a net both count as hitting. The latter, of course, may be subject to additional defense mechanics such as Reflex saves or the like, depending on how the system is framed.

4a. Hmm, I'm not familiar with any system that models abstract dodges. Do you have an example?

4b. Assume that defenses are static. However, the target of the attack can spend appropriate actions (if it has any left) to perform defensive maneuvers to weaken or negate the attack directed at it. The difficulty of the defensive maneuver will be based on the hit roll of the attack defended against. How should this impact hit rates?

 

[ashockney]

Case A: Lone BBEG tough enough to take on the entire party
Case B: Lone BBEG with assorted underlings which individually are lower in level than the party average
Case C: Enemy party, assume they are fighting their exact clones down to equipment, abilities and buffs.

Player or DM? Or both?
1) Are you mostly a player, mostly a DM or do you get to wear both hats a lot? Just want to see which side of the screen you're from, not sure if this changes anything though...

Hit Rate
2) What would be an ideal hit rate range using the party's strongest attacks against the entire range of different defences available for

• the lone BBEG in case A
• the supported BBEG in case B
• the underlings in case B
• a character fighting his exact clone in case C (ie, the armoured Knight vs the other armoured Knight)

3) Referring to 2d), do you feel that the hit rates should vary by class? What I mean is, if a Knight can hit his exact clone (down to buffs, abilities, equipment) 70% of the time, should a dual-wielding Ranger have around 70% chance of hitting his target Ranger as well?
4) Against an opponent of equal strength and even footing, is it acceptable for your best attacks to have a hit rate of much less than 50%? Please assume that they are supposed to beat the enemy in combat, and don't account for maneuvers that may increase the hit rates yet.
5) How long do you feel combat-relevant buffs should last?

Damage
6) Without using Save or Die type attacks, should it be possible to incapacitate or kill the toughest character by direct damage in one single action by

• the lone BBEG in case A,
• the supported BBEG in case B,
• the exact clone fighting the character in case C?

7) If (6) is not acceptable, would one full round of actions be acceptable?
8) If you found (6) OR (7) acceptable, how often do you feel that the BBEG or clone should be repeat this in one encounter?
9) Without using Save or Dies, should one single character be able to incapacitate or kill the lone BBEG in case A using direct damage in one action or one rounds worth of actions?
10) If your answer to (9), how much resources should be burned in such an attempt?

1) DM
2) Using their optimal attacks: a)75%, b)80%, c)95%, d)depends upon class and attack type (50% - 95%), b/c some naturally defend better against themselves
3) Yes, they should vary by class, attack type, and defense type
4) No, it should hit but be less effective
5) An action or an encounter
6) No (PS - "toughest" is arbitrary)
7) No
8) n/a
9) No
10) 50% or greater of all the parties resources to burn down the "penultimate" encounter to end a campaign