How Many Hits to KO?

[WhiteShark]

Assuming two combatants of perfectly equal ability, both well-rounded, perfectly balanced between offense and defense, how many attacks (total attempts) and how many hits (successful attempts) should it take for one to KO/kill/defeat the other?

Personally, I think three hits should be the absolute max. If three average hits aren't enough to take down an equal opponent, you start getting into absurd levels of toughness. Obviously that doesn't hold if the opponent is specialized in defense, but I'm assuming average combatants here. Number of attacks is a little trickier, but I don't think low accuracy is very fun in general, so assuming characters should land most of their attacks, I'd put it at four. If two glass cannons go toe to toe, I think they should be nearly, perhaps actually, OHKOing each other on average.

Please select one box from the Attacks section and one box from the Hits section.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

It depends upon the setting.

The Yakuza series is about muscular men having honorable duels and beating each other up with their fists. Boxers can endure many hits, so a long slugfest is believable. The unbelievable part is that Kiryu isn't very bruised and bloodied and does not have a broken rib after most boss battles.

For your average RPG fight between people wielding swords, they should indeed be incapacitated or killed within one or two strikes, three at the most. The solution is to implement some sort of secondary HP bar where you're breaking down their armor or whittling down their strength so they can no longer parry your attacks, and then you actually bodily damage them and kill them, which would be more of a finisher.

An adrenaline/determination mechanic could allow a character who has been mechanically killed to continue on for a few more seconds before collapsing, like in Valkyria Chronicles 4, but this should be used sparingly.

[maidenhaver]

One attack and one hit is all it should take.

[Emphyrio]

A difficult question. Surely it should take a different number of attacks for two tanks to kill each other than two glass cannons? And in a real-time game it should take more hits than in a turn-based game.

I think in a turn-based game you want it so that you can one-hit kill with a normal attack when circumstances are ideal- enemy is flanked or not in cover, doesn't have high defensive abilities, and your character has their regular buffs and no debuffs. If enemies are in cover or have high defense stats, it should take enough extra attacks to down them that it's a better option to set up a flank or self-buff or debuff first rather than just normal attacking. That's how it is in Troubleshooter even at the high difficulties. By mid-game, the tanky enemies start coming with an ability that prevents them from losing more than 50% hp from one attack, which is more difficult to deal with than it sounds when one-shots are the norm. But Troubleshooter is a game where you usually have a party of 5 or 6 and you fight dozens of enemies on each map. In single-character tb games like age of decadence and underrail it usually takes more hits, but I also didn't like the combat in those games at all.

[Gunnar]

In the real world, one good shot to the head from a trained boxer or martial artist that fully lands is enough to knock anyone out, regardless of how tough they are / how much training they have. It's all about defense, parries and dodging the blows. Opponents of equal skill spend a lot of time trying to find a way through those defenses or battering down an enemy until they weaken them enough that they can get that one shot in to end the fight.

[WhiteShark]

Surely it should take a different number of attacks for two tanks to kill each other than two glass cannons?

Yes indeed. Consider the poll to be about two combatants who are both 50/50 offense/defense.

With regards to grunt enemies, I agree that they should go down in a single hit barring unfavorable circumstances, but I made this poll with the idea of two "elites", or characters of PC-equivalent strength, fighting each other.

By mid-game, the tanky enemies start coming with an ability that prevents them from losing more than 50% hp from one attack, which is more difficult to deal with than it sounds when one-shots are the norm.

Oh yes, I remember these. IIRC my sniper lady was set up to get another action if she one-shot an enemy so guys like that were annoying.

For your average RPG fight between people wielding swords,

I was indeed picturing armed combatants, but you bring up a good point about boxers and the like. Setting assumptions seem to factor into this in a big way.

For your average RPG fight between people wielding swords, they should indeed be incapacitated or killed within one or two strikes, three at the most. The solution is to implement some sort of secondary HP bar where you're breaking down their armor or whittling down their strength so they can no longer parry your attacks, and then you actually bodily damage them and kill them, which would be more of a finisher.

I prefer armor as damage reduction unless it's specifically something that should be ablative. There are a few tabletop games that do what you're describing: one pool for shock/non-lethal damage and another for real wounds.

[WhiteShark]

In the real world, one good shot to the head from a trained boxer or martial artist that fully lands is enough to knock anyone out, regardless of how tough they are / how much training they have. It's all about defense, parries and dodging the blows. Opponents of equal skill spend a lot of time trying to find a way through those defenses or battering down an enemy until they weaken them enough that they can get that one shot in to end the fight.

Yes, a strong shot to the head can do that, but my defintition of 'hit' is broader than that. The MMA fights I've seen often have multiple solid hits before someone goes down.

[J1M]

It depends upon the setting.

The Yakuza series is about muscular men having honorable duels and beating each other up with their fists. Boxers can endure many hits, so a long slugfest is believable. The unbelievable part is that Kiryu isn't very bruised and bloodied and does not have a broken rib after most boss battles.

For your average RPG fight between people wielding swords, they should indeed be incapacitated or killed within one or two strikes, three at the most. The solution is to implement some sort of secondary HP bar where you're breaking down their armor or whittling down their strength so they can no longer parry your attacks, and then you actually bodily damage them and kill them, which would be more of a finisher.

An adrenaline/determination mechanic could allow a character who has been mechanically killed to continue on for a few more seconds before collapsing, like in Valkyria Chronicles 4, but this should be used sparingly.

That's what hit points are. It is an abstract concept. It doesn't represent meat.

[Norfleet]

It really depends. How much agency does one have over the process of hitting? How much mental effort/attention is given to the process of doing so? If I'm putting a great deal of personal effort and attention into delivering an attack, I expect a relatively low HTK, otherwise it just seems not to be worth it. If, on the other hand, I'm just spamming autoattacks with little personal effort or attention, I can tolerate a much higher HTK.

Ranged vs. melee is also important: If ranged attacks have an overly high HTK, the value of ranged attacking at all tends to vanish. How high is too high? Well, that depends on range: As a rule, a ranged attack sequence initiated against a single average non-boss foe from maximum attack range, firing as often and effectively as able, with no LOF breaks, should be able to conclude the fight while it is still a ranged fight. Otherwise what's the point? Ranged attacks depend heavily on stopping power, while melee can tolerate a much higher HTK.

Finally, the framing device has a major impact. It is much easier to accept that a power armored trooper with a personal shield can absorb 30 plasma rifle shots than a normal relatively-unprotected human can tank even 3 .50 BMG shots.

[rusty_shackleford]

Seven

[Humbaba]

Yes, a strong shot to the head can do that, but my defintition of 'hit' is broader than that. The MMA fights I've seen often have multiple solid hits before someone goes down.

Those are not "solid" hits by definition. A punch that doesn't knock down the opponent didn't land correctly. Those are grazing shots or punches with little power. There are fighters with an exceptional chin, who can take shots that would kill most men. This is my favourite example:



Roy Nelson won that fight, believe it or not.

Those fighters are an exception to the rule however. 9 times out of ten a "solid" hit like that ends the fight. Irl fighters don't wittle down someone else's health bar, they land a shot that exceeds the opponent's damage threshold and penetrates his defenses.

Wargames like 40k model this correctly. First you roll to hit and THEN you roll to wound, where the number needed is determined by the attacker's strength and the target's toughness. If the roll succeeds, the model loses (gains?) a wound and dies (unless an applicable armor roll is made). Human-tier units are universally statted with 1 wound, anything with more than that is considered superhuman.