Skip to Content

Different options for health, RPG

9 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

Down here, I have choices in health and agility for players.
Agility is used for an enemy damage roll d6.
Roll the number or less for a hit. Thus lower numbers for agility are better.

Depending on the character, players can choose if their character goes for low health with a low risk on being damaged. Or high health with a higher risk on being damaged.

There are instances, where players choose to retreat. Having a low health to begin with is thus more risk for the player.

Imagine having 1 health left and risking getting 1 damage or having 2 health left with a certainty of getting 1 damage.

I think I have found a good balance, but I would like to put this to a test. Remember, agility is what the enemy needs to roll or less, for a hit. What would you choose from every class, and why?

Mage
10 health with agility 5
05 health with agility 2

Archer/Ranger/Footman
30 health with agility 6 (can't dodge)
15 health with agility 2

Knight
25 health with agility 4
10 health with agility 1

Paladin
30 health with agility 3
15 health with agility 1

PS, a combination of low health and bad agility of course means a very high damage output.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
High Health

Unless there was another advantage to having an excellent Agility score, I would opt for more health in every case. Having a chance to soak up more damage affords me more options, and at the very least more opportunities to outlast my opponent.

Does Agility factor in to one's ability to score a hit on their opponent, for example? If so, then I would consider a better Agility score at the expense of health on a case-by-case basis. But generally speaking, I would imagine that a higher Health score would be better most of the time.

Juzek
Juzek's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/19/2017
This is a good question! When

This is a good question!

When talking about the combo of agility and health, it comes down to how survivable the character is. Let me define "Effective health" as the amount of damage a character can on average soak up before they die.

because a Paladin with 15 health is only actually hit 1 time out of 6 times, they have an effective health of 15 / 1 * 6 = 90

lets look at all of them:
Mage
10 health with agility 5 ==> 12
05 health with agility 2 ==> 15

Archer/Ranger/Footman
30 health with agility 6 ==> 30
15 health with agility 2 ==> 45

Knight
25 health with agility 4 ==> 36
10 health with agility 1 ==> 60

Paladin
30 health with agility 3 ==> 60
15 health with agility 1 ==> 90

I would always pick the character with the higher effective health.

Some of this depends on how hard the enemies hit. for instance if the only enemy in the game hits for 30 health, it wouldn't matter how much effective health something has, only your character's ability to dodge.

The amount your enemies hit could also impact certain cut-offs. lets say they hit for 8 damage. a character with 5 heath dies on one hit, one with 10 health takes 2 hits, and one with 15 also takes 2 hits, so there is no real difference between having 9-16 health.

Now, the other thing I want to say is that unless agility is tied to something else that must be "lower is better" I would recommend switching it so that higher is better in a statistically equivalent way.
It would be much more intuitive for your players.
for instance if you have a higher agility is better, and the enemy would have to exceed your agility in their roll you could give your characters 0-5 agility (equivalent to your 6-1). an agility of 0 means that anything the enemy rolls would beat you, and 5 would mean that 1 out of 6 rolls would hit. (players love winning ties, nothing says close call and gives a feeling of relief like winning a tie)

wob
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2017
hi. firstly i think it

hi.
firstly i think it depends on weather you can regain hp if you can, and its fairly easy, i would probably opt for better agility.

secondly, it slightly jars that you are harder to hit with less agility. i'm sure there are mechanical reasons for it in your game but i feel a less agile fighter is easier to hit. a simple solution would be to change the name of the stat "vulnerability" perhaps .

finally you can avoid the maths (almost) entirely by letting players assign x points across character stats. perhaps with a minimum/maximum for certain stats/character e.g. a mage must have at least 5 intelligence or a knight can have a maximum of 2 intelligence

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Thank you for your answers.

let-off studios wrote:
Unless there was another advantage to having an excellent Agility score, I would opt for more health in every case. Having a chance to soak up more damage affords me more options, and at the very least more opportunities to outlast my opponent.
Thank you for your answer.

let-off studios wrote:
Does Agility factor in to one's ability to score a hit on their opponent, for example? If so, then I would consider a better Agility score at the expense of health on a case-by-case basis. But generally speaking, I would imagine that a higher Health score would be better most of the time.
For attacks, the characters have another agility. Still pending on the names between the 2, mobility/agility? Accuracy is used on projectiles.
I keep the 2 separate. But there are instances where they are equal.

@Juzek
You analysed effective health!! That's awesome. I never knew someone else could do that.

Juzek wrote:
I would always pick the character with the higher effective health.
Thank you for your answer.
I see where you are coming from, I have the same thought. But also have more insight of the game.
I don't know yet if "fodder/support" armies are going to be formed. But if there are armies, agility will be better indeed.
If it sticks by using only single character stays (hero), the question that I asked comes up. Originally, players always picked the health option. But showing them that effective health has made them wonder.

Juzek wrote:
Some of this depends on how hard the enemies hit.
Not that hard. It is a close call all the time. Players must plan ahead and outweigh the risk for rewards.
The damages centre's around 5. 445566 or 345567 or 234678 die are possible. But multiple enemies can attack. While the mage alone, can be defeated by 1 or 2, it can harm 6 goblins in an area (probably 5). The paladin can soak up damage twice or trice from these 6 goblins. By then, the job should be done. But if the paladin is alone, it can harm only 1 with each attack. And on average, the 6 goblins will win. I am not sure yet where the balance will be between the characters and their attack damage. But the average damage will be something along the lines of 1 versus 3 versus 5 goblins.

Bigger opponents are not added yet.

Juzek wrote:
I would recommend switching it so that higher is better in a statistically equivalent way.
Whoops! You are right. I could do that.
Due to silly reasons, we forgot to do that.

***

I have now 2 opposite answers.
But on a group as whole.
I wonder if there isn't an individual case of taking the other option.

For me, it is the mage and knight on health. Because a hit is a hit. And it gives me a chance to retreat.

The other 2 (4) options are on agility. For the exact same reason as Juzek mentioned.

Most of my players went for health. Despite the penalty they pay.

***

Something to think about.
Retreating and reviving are both equally annoying. But even for the mage, reviving is rarer than retreating.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
vulnerability

wob wrote:
hi.
firstly i think it depends on weather you can regain hp if you can, and its fairly easy, i would probably opt for better agility.
Potions are used. But their effectiveness depends on that same agility.

wob wrote:

secondly, it slightly jars that you are harder to hit with less agility. i'm sure there are mechanical reasons for it in your game but i feel a less agile fighter is easier to hit. a simple solution would be to change the name of the stat "vulnerability" perhaps .
Yes. Invert it to higher is better if agility is used. But I like that "vulnerability" solution of yours. Adjusting notes right away.

wob wrote:
finally you can avoid the maths (almost) entirely by letting players assign x points across character stats. perhaps with a minimum/maximum for certain stats/character e.g. a mage must have at least 5 intelligence or a knight can have a maximum of 2 intelligence

Alas, the game is a bit more complicated than that regarding math and balance. I give the players choices between "modes". These "bodies" are completely separate from the "weapons" that the characters will carry.

***

2 agility
1 health

Interesting results so far.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
All the same health, all the same effective health

One of my players suggested having different suits instead of characters.
This way, a mage could carry the same as a paladin.
Have the same health.
Have the same effective health.

Also, I now inverted the hit chance into something more related. The higher the roll needed to break through, the better. This time, armor, is the best choice as word for the statistic.

Roll more than the armor, and the weapon gets through.
If I order the armor from high to low, there are no issue's regarding re-rolling.

Restoration of lost health is done with mana.
I don't know which colours and how the mana is called. But I think of 2 types, and sometimes they need to be mixed.

So, I thought of the following as experiment;
armor, health, effective health, needs colour mana for Restoration/Healing:

Full body suit of Chain Mail
2 armor on 20 health, effective 30, 3R+3H

Small Shield with Chain Mail
3 armor on 05 health, effective 10, 8R
2 armor on 10 health, effective 15, 3R+3H
0 armor on 05 health, effective 05, 4H

Large Shield
3 armor on 10 health, effective 20, 8R
0 armor on 10 health, effective 10, 4H

Heavy Shield
4 armor on 05 health, effective 15, 12R
0 armor on 15 health, effective 15, 4H

Not sure about how I am going to do the repair and healing magic. Perhaps a mana cost per hit point?
4 armor needs 12 mana.
3 armor needs 8 mana.
2 armor needs 6 mana.
0 armor needs 4 mana.

When having to resurrect someone in the field, the total mana is needed all at once, plus an item. For any set, the total mana is going to be 120.
I am not sure about repair mana and healing mana. Maybe I should simply keep one mana type.
Because the restoration seems to have the upper hand.
Maybe damaged goods simply need repairs.
Chain Mail will be treated different than the shields.

But this is only an experiment. I think I will look for a higher set of health. The health that I intend for the game should be around 50 effective.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Yikes, something went wrong

The penalty that I used for the weight increase on health: Seems to be too high.

I used 25% for each next tier.
But by doing some math: It has to be below 15%!

I have my hopes on 10% or 12,5%. Or else, the whole weight increase is discarded.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Other games

It is great to play other types of games and discover new effects.

One of my goals is to translate this current subject to my hobby game. I have some choices to make. And a lot of play tests to do.

A penalty in weight for multi health
A penalty on weight is only applied if the bonus rule in my game is removed. Upgrade on balance is still a mystery.

Removing/Keeping bonus damage
It creates down time for players. And often requires a calculator for testing the extra stats. The bonus rule is optional: But the balance is raised to a whooping 99% when applied. A die roll goes from 100% to 150%.

Individual bonus damage
Target bigger? Here is some extra damage on your roll.
No downtime, no calculator, no extra stats.
Mutli health would be at a disadvantage to more damage. No penalty needed. How much the die roll is increased is unknown.

Only a penalty for multi types of armor
There is an issue with the protection mechanic. Normally you need 6 infantry to protect a tank. 5 fail, 7 have 1 reserve.
A tank with a shield needs 7, with 8 giving 1 reserve. On the other hand, the tank itself has always that 1 extra, even if there are only 5 or 4 infantry.
Maybe it balances itself.

Testing! Is what I need.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Playtest results

I think that I must stick with the original bonus rule.
When trying another system. It is riddled with all kinds of inconsistencies.
Despite being cumbersome: The bonus rule had them ALL covered.

That leaves me with one subject remaining:
Only a penalty for multi types of armor

But maybe, if that one is not to be looked at. I need a new subject. One that addresses possible downsides to bigger units. I'll get to work on that soon (this week)

***

But perhaps there is one more option?
What if I apply a bonus rule for when a single health set targets a bigger health set?
This on top of the original bonus rule.

That way, players will certainly mix single sets with multi sets. Where the single sets will protect the multi sets as long as possible.

Of course, tanks can still protect a multi set of infantry. But being outnumbered by the time when the multi set needs to fight, is an extra risk that players take. If the multi set has to fight directly while having the upper hand. The riks is rewarded.

A multi set that is mixed, will also have this extra rule against them.
I don't need to have strange rules to determine the weight any more. A simple add up.

Still, this needs testing.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut