How should damage work in a perfect game?

[Devronq]

So I've been thinking about asking this for a while and im not sure the best way to word...

Lets say you had a perfectly balanced version of DND, how do you think the damage to Hp ratio would like?

I understand the whole rocket tag thing and i personally feel its a bad way to play and a sign of imbalance in the game.

At all levels its very easy to deal 1 hit KO but its also very easy to deal 10times the damage that a creature could possible have have in Hp and that seems like a big issue as well.

The opposite also seems very bad as well i hear 4.0 has issues where it takes way to many hits to kill something.

I was thinking maybe if your a strong optimized character against an equally optimized character that maybe 3-5 hit kills are more appropriate?

Two thing i wont be taking into account is that at low levels like 1-5 you can still 1 hit ko and deal way more dam than things have HP.
The game can still break at 21+ but not before.

Sorry for being all over the place but any thoughts opinions on what a perfectly balanced damage system would be like?

[Zanos]

An appropriate CR encounter at any level should last 3-5 rounds in my opinion, tending towards 3. Whatever sort of average damage/health ratio makes that happen sounds good to me.

[NichG]

For me, the way to do it is look at combat lengths rather than how many hits an individual takes to knock out. Part of this is defining combatants by more than just their CR, but also their role in the fight (sort of how 4ed does it).

Basically, a 'chunk' of a fight should last about 2-3 rounds, where a 'chunk' is a segment in which all of the enemies/scenario elements/etc are relatively static. A boss-style fight should be composed of 2-3 chunks - the villain watches as you fight mooks from behind his shield, then his big dragon pet, then he personally leaves the shield to fight, for example. A one-round chunk is too short to have a feeling of progression or adaptation (if the villain has a nasty attack, its more like 'phew I survived' instead of 'phew I figured out how to survive that', which isn't so good). A four-round chunk starts to get repetitive - by that point either you should have adapted and won, or failed to adapt and lost.

[Devronq]

Ok good feedback and yes its seem more appropriate to say how many rounds combat should take not hits. Anyone else?

[John Longarrow]

The ultimate balance is what your party enjoys the most.

In a lot of games this tends to be very quick, down and dirty. Others, its the long, drawn out brawl with lots of enemies dropping left and right. For myself, I like it when a fight last between 20 to 60 minutes.

None of this has anything to do with HP ratios.

If you are looking only at how much physical damage a combatant can deal/take per round, your missing out on movement and armor. Toss in battle field control, ranged attacks, and the story purpose for a fight and you will see that trying to get an optimum ratio isn't really relevant.

ONE third level pixie warlock should be able to keep a fairly optimized 7th level party busy for quite a while. Unless the party has a good way to pin down the pixie quickly (or get everyone to see it) the fight should be a long, drawn out game of cat and mouse. This is because range, movement, and the ability to avoid being targeted play heavily to the pixie's favor.

Having the pixie stand in front of a 7th level fighter that can target said pixie and the fight is very short.

[Aegis013]

The ultimate balance is what your party enjoys the most.
...
None of this has anything to do with HP ratios.

If you are looking only at how much physical damage a combatant can deal/take per round, your missing out on movement and armor. Toss in battle field control, ranged attacks, and the story purpose for a fight and you will see that trying to get an optimum ratio isn't really relevant.
...

Couldn't have said it better myself.