Fundamental Game Assumption: Level Difference til Miniontude

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Alright, so in a previous thread we discussed how many hits on average it should take for a same level monster to die, we roughly decided on 4 hits.

Now, the question is how many levels above another challenger such that on an average hit they will die? For example, should it take a level 5 character to kill a level 1 character in one hit? A level 8? Level 10?

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Edit: Upon some reflection. If every 4 levels, miniontude is achieved, then that seems ideal because it ties in directly to the paradigm of 4 hits til death. Thus if it takes 4X damage to kill a character at level 1, a level one character does X damage, a level 2 character does 2X Damage, level 3 3X, and finally level 4 4X damage = death in 1 hit.

[Foxwarrior]

If a level 4 character can kill a level 1 character in 1 hit and a level 4 character in 4 hits, and it's the level difference that matters, then a level 7 character has to do 16X damage.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I think that 4 hits until death is way too many. There will be misses in the game and people that underperform and monsters that wriggle away by dint of powers, tactics, or player inattention.

2.5 to 3 hits for the 'average' monster from an 'average' damage dealer (though I don't think that there should even be a generic player role of 'does more damage') sounds better to me. I'd even be willing to go down to just 2.

[Josh_Kablack]

Well, if you have 4 PCs and one MC, and everyone takes 1 minute per character to resolve their turn then a 4 PC vs 4 monster fight takes 26 minutes to resolve at 4 *attacks* to end a monster, assuming that the PCs can optimize their focus fire and that there is no time on either end for drawing a map, changing terrain or finding or clearing minis. And at least in my experience, 1 minute per character is pretty much the best case - you get there with a highly focused and knowledgeable group where the MC cracks the whip at even small distractions and nobody is playing characters who have complicated multi-action per round abilities available (Leadership, Haste, Summoning, Charmed Enemies, Controlled Undead, Swift Action, Cheesing AoOs, Damage-over-Time effects, etc). So if you even want to be able to run fights which take less than a half-hour block of session time to resolve in your hypothetical system, then enemies really do have to go down in notably fewer than 4 hits.

My personal experience is that most of the slackers I play with would rather swill beer, take bathroom breaks right before their initiative, stop to look rules up, make Monty Python jokes and have characters who have entourages to such an extent that battles tend to average 3-5 minutes per player turn, which makes running a 4-hits-to-end fight 4 on 4 fight at least half the session - but from prior go rounds that doesn't seem to be the norm for people on this board.

[TheFlatline]

I think that 4 hits until death is way too many. There will be misses in the game and people that underperform and monsters that wriggle away by dint of powers, tactics, or player inattention.

2.5 to 3 hits for the 'average' monster from an 'average' damage dealer (though I don't think that there should even be a generic player role of 'does more damage') sounds better to me. I'd even be willing to go down to just 2.

But if your hit rate is around 75% (which is roughly where the number has been put in the past), then you're only talking about a monster surviving 3, maybe 4 attacks. In a party of 4, that means a monster goes down on average every round.

Is that a desirable solution to combat? If so then cool. If not (if it takes 3 attacks on average to down a monster and you have 4 players in the party, the slow poke is going to twiddle his thumbs on a monster-by-monster basis) then you have to take that into account.

If the average monster is going to die in 3 attacks, then the average combat needs to involve multiple monsters to last long enough to encourage tactics, otherwise you have the two or three round spam where you do the same shit over and over because you *will* drop the monster. Which then causes another problem. If 3-4 attacks drops someone between equals, then every 3-4 characters/NPCs per side is going to result in one casualty a round on average. So to have any combat that matters relatively speaking, you're almost promising to kill PCs. Up PC survivability and the danger element drops rapidly. Drop the number of NPCs to a survivable level and you blow through combat in 2 or 3 rounds.

I'm not necessarily objecting, but there's a lot of balance that needs to be taken into account if we're talking about parity and lethality going in both directions.

[Dean]

I would like to point out for clarity's sake that "Attacks" appears to be being used to mean "Turns of a players attention given to incapacitating an opponent". I say this because multiple attacks are going to really alter everything being said here, and perhaps for the better.

[OgreBattle]

I like how Warhammer does it.

1 wound= grunt, footsoldier, dies in droves.

2 wounds= hero, can survive a serious wound and keep fighting, or a towering beast

3 wounds= mighty hero, a powerful ogre

4+ wounds= huge scary monster or champion of nurgle.


And then you tweak it with the Toughness score.