In previous designer diaries, I provided readers with a look at several different combat topics. Combat Training 101 introduced the initiative rules used in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay . Combat Training 102 provided an in-depth look at the turn structure during a round of combat.

Now that the individual elements of combat task resolution have been discussed, it is time to look at an example that incorporates all of the information. This designer diary walks you through one entire player turn during a combat.

Also, at the end of the diary I provide an update on The Emperor's Decree and a shot of the kits being prepped for distribution.

And as an added bonus to the Combat 103 content, here's a brief look at several sources of critical damage:

1) Sigmar's Comet. A Sigmar's Comet result on the yellow expertise die is a "wild card" result. The player rolling the comet may choose to use it as a success, a boon, or to trigger any effect that requires a Sigmar's Comet. One such effect is that any weapon can deal critical damage with a Sigmar's Comet.

2) Weapon Critical Rating. Each weapon has a critical rating (sometimes abbreviated "CR"). The critical rating is how many boons are required to trigger a critical with that weapon. For example, a weapon with CR 3 will inflict a critical wound for three boons.

3) Action Card Effect. Some action cards have a specific result that allows them to inflict critical damage, as either a success line effect, or as one of the special side effects that can be triggered with boons.

4) Miscasts. Several results in the Miscast deck can result in the caster suffering wounds, in addition to other effects. The nastiest cause critical wounds. Magic is risky stuff.

For every critical inflicted by an attack, one of the wounds is turned face up as a critical wound. This is an important distiction for example, an effect that says "+2 critical" does not mean it inflicts the standard damage and then two additional critical wounds. Rather, it means "add two to the number of wounds the target suffers that get converted into critical wounds."

Thanks for the info on how Criticals work, that was a question I was left with after Combat Training 102. Can't wait to get my hands on a copy of the game!

Some excellent answers! Thanks! I do have a few notes and questions, which might be stuff for another diary or answers here maybe:

- Does everyone always start combat at a neutral stance, or can they start a combat at a particular stance? I realize stance positions between combat rounds can only be adjusted by one per round, but at what position can it start in?

- What affects do Fatigue and Stress have? Obviously, Mellerion suffered a significant amount of each to perform all those actions. I think it's a nice touch, giving the players the option to push themselves to quicken actions ... the question is what is the penalty for stress and fatigue? How will those hamper his efforts in later rounds?

- It's interesting to see definitely that opposed checks use the defender's stat as misfortune dice. It would be good to see examples for how or why a difficulty (ie challenge dice) might be increased greater than 1, especially in regards to combat. Also, suppose it is a test against a skill and not Defence. Is the target's associated characteristic added as misfortune dice? What if they are trained in the specific defending skill? The attacker gets a yellow for being trained, is it just an additional misfortune die if the defender is trained?

- I think it is *very* interesting that the delay allows the GM to increase the recharge of either an action card, or reduce the player's initiative slot. My question, however, is does the init reduction apply to the init slot that the PC rolled, the init slot that the PC acted in, or any one of the GM's choice, or does it apply to that PC specifically, meaning any slot they are in counts as one lower? Since which PC acts in which slot can change, I am not sure how this is determined.

- Great extra info provided! I like that the Comet gives the player the option of what to use it as. Could we get a diary about arcane magic. This is yet another mention of Miscasts and the miscast deck, but we have no notion of how those work nor how arcane casting works!

To be frank, that seemed a bit more complex than I was expecting. I suspect that's because they were trying to cram an example of everything into one player's turn, and that normally it wouldn't be quite that complex.

A second worry is that it will tempt players to "Alpha Strike" with their first action, leaving little left for prolonged combats.

Generally, I still like what I see, however.

schoon said:

yeah it seemed a bit heavy but, like you said, only to explain. Im sure the game will be alot smoother when you get rolling. On a personal note im exsited to see the three part on combat...very very cool! im gana enjoy this...alot

"Looking at the requirements of his Accurate Shot action card, this ranged attack requires preparation, which is a different type of manoeuvre."

I don't see this on the Accurate Shot card. Is it represented by a symbol?

Mmm... what to say...

I'm both intrigued and worried about what I just red.

I'm intrigued because this system manages to bring something new and the custom dice pool seems to have it's pros.

I'm worried about all the gimmiks this game brings along: counters, the use of cards, cardboards instead of character sheets... all seem a little distracting and most probably people playing this game will pay less attention to the GM description and more to all the things they have in front of them.

Reguarding diary 103... I'm concerned about one thing: in the diary some the attention is attracted by the text on the fact that some die result showed how the arrow hit the beastmen due to the PC being heavily trained. While it seems at first a nice touch it raises a question in my mind: does a GM really need a die roll to tell the story for him?

I mean, I can see the good thing about it, you roll the die depending on various factors contributing to the action and pondering upon the results you build up the action description WITH the player (as some of the results meanings have to be picked by him), that IS a wind of fresh air and a sure plus of this system. But in fact it seems that developers pushed themselves a little too forward, making a single action quite time consuming to resolve and describe.

I definitely HAVE to play a game of this to put some order in my mind...

NezziR said:

Me neither...

Although part of the core description process of resolving a "test" the description needs to be only what the GM and party want it to be.

For my own part, I may, just pare it down somewhat and say that the attack was successful, or not, without belaboring the point of how much influence training or luck played - much like we did with a standard percentile roll. The different dice (and their results) could be used solely as a GM tool for the rounds description.

In principal I like the idea of "recharge", "Fatigue" and "Stress" but I am worried about a bean counter approach to situations. Admittedly some actions should not be able to be made one after the other, and how to represent this in the round format is always difficult, but three diferent sorts of counters to juggle as well as the story seems like more paperwork.

Overall I like 75% of what I have read in the diaries, etc, but have a few concerns with the rest. None the less I will almost definately still get the game.

Alp

Regarding the prepare manoeuvre requirement listed in the diary -- mea culpa .

I originally wrote this diary using a different action, but changed it to an action that specifically had a Sigmar's Comet result so I could show how a comet provides several choices to the player. I missed changing that sentence to reflect the fact that the action now shown, Accurate Shot, does not require the prepare manoeuvre.

I've updated the diary to reflect this -- thanks all for catching it!

Also, I deliberately went into a great level of detail with the combat diaries. It shows how difficult a balancing act it is to provide information on a new system.

Too little information and it comes across vague, uncertain, or incomplete. Too much information and it risks coming across overly-complex, cumbersome, and wordy. But RPG gamers are smart folks -- hopefully with the extra details, readers can process this information fairly easily, and with the context of the other designer diaries, put this into perspective and see it's the extension of a fairly simple core system.

From my point of view (of a combat practitioner, swordmanship and boxe) many of the presented rules haven't a real-world explanation.
It seems a convulsed selection of actions/dice that say little on what is happening on the battlefield.

Sorry, I really have difficulty in describing what the example is trying to simulate.

The critical hit procedure isn't of my liking (and reminds me of the D&D 3.x criticals...).
To my experience "criticals" is a function of the wielder, not the object itself.

Bigger weapons get an higher crit chance?

DeathFromAbove said:

I definitely agree with it being mainly a function of the wielder, but I could also see that it'd be easier to get a critical hit with certain weapons. For example, it might be easier to hit that specifik spot with a rapier rather than a wooden club.

Also worth mentioning is that you do get better at getting critical hits depending on your skills since you get a yellow die for each skill point you have.

Erik Bauer said:

I'm glad you brought this up. I've been thinking about it a lot, particularly after this latest diary. I'm a pretty creative GM. I'm a firm believer that the 'devil is in the details'. It's my description of minutia that brings my players back to the table every week. Smells, sounds, perceptions, all these things help you paint a picture that pulls your players in.

Now, interpreting the dice in WFRP3 is, I think, a helpful tool and not a hardened rule. Think of it as a 'reminder' in case you need one. In my campaigns that I've run for my current group over the last decade, I've amazed my players that I've been able to come up with a new and visceral description for each crit that results in a kill. It's different every time. Coming up with a new description thousands of times over the years... Well, let's just say I know how Matt Groening feels creating a new intro for the Simpsons each week.

With the new symbolic dice I have some additional inspiration if I decide to elaborate on a particular combat or social roll. It's not something I need, but it's something I'll use.

I must sound like an advertisement for WFRP3. I'm sorry, I'm just really inspired. I love new things.

NezziR said:

No need to fear, mate. Everybody has to have his own tastes. It's called freedom I guess.

Back on topic, I see your point and it's a good one, but I do fear that some of my players, the most technical and rule-bound (if not quite munchkin) ones would surely overuse this feature trying to force me describing or deciding things. I know I'm the GM and last decision is mine, but I find pressure from players being uninspiring.

I guess I'll have to wait for that demo game in order to clear up my mind.

DeathFromAbove said:

This game isn't a reality simulation. Go try Riddle of Steel if you want that. This game has a blatantly different goal.

Furthermore, your reality simulation nitpick is misplaced give the same person a short sword or a great sword and though the "wielder" variable will remain constant, the effect of critical hits should certainly change due to the "object" changing.

DeathFromAbove said:

Brace yourself everyone, Im going to defend the system. For a moment.

As a combat veteran (if being shot at in Afghanistan qualifies) no RPG has ever actually had "real world" explanations. This is a fantasy game, a role playing game, a game meant to recreate pulp, gothic, horror, fantasy action in a gothic grim world, primarily represented in novels, comics, video games and a poorly designed yet widely popular table top battle game. I dont want any game to be overtly real, so lack of realism really doesnt bother me.

Now lack of speed, flow, charm and ease in a combat system does bother me.

Yes, I'm not saying that an RPG must be realistic (for the hundrendth time, how rolling dice can simulate combat???), but should put the right mood on the table.

Terwox said:

No, the (potential) damage will change, not the critical chance.
Moreover, smaller the weapon, more you can hit sensible spot.

Daggers, in armored combat, are often the finishing weapons.

DeathFromAbove said:

True.

I wonder, though, if this new system will allow the GM to alter the flavor of combat at all? As in, how customizable will this system be? Will each weapon have a specific card?

I hope not.

Necrozius said:

If ti makes sense, why not?

For criticals, I will point out that skill aids greatly towards Critical results: Possibility of a comet and another chance for a boon. Additionally, the actions themselves can affect chances of getting a critical. I do think that weapons do have an effect on the likelihood of a critical (otherwise an especially damaging blow). It is not always linked to size, but to shape and utilization. This isn't new to RPGs, but it is new to WFRP. We don't know specifics for weapons, to which weapons are more likely to crititcal than others. It is important to remember, however, that you need a balance between hammers and boons. More boons, for the likelihood of a critical, means fewer successes to score damage (or even successfully hit for that matter). It becomes a balancing act. If you try to maximizes successes, you lose out on criticals and special effects. If you try to maximize on boons, you minimize damage and risk potentially failing to even hit. Then there are comets, which can be used to score a critical, but could also be used as an additional success, which could be crucial to even getting a hit, etc. I find this all quite interesting, and exciting.

I also think the description given of dice result is to give the GM and players a guide. The yellow die represents the PC's extra skill. If it scores a success, it helped the PC to hit to some extent. Seeing this can help the GM decide to narrate that "only due to the PCs superior skill was the hit able to finally land". It is not mandatory for the GM to do so, but it can make the GM's job easier if he wishes to attempt to narrate each attack. Just like in another thread, where it was suggested that when adding challenge and misforutune dice to a task, the GM can narrate as he adds each die one at a time. This isn't mandatory. The GM could just give 1 challenge die and 2 misfortune die to a player and tell them to roll. Or, he could say the opponent is averagely skilled, sliding one challenge die forward, then describing the dimly lit area and add a misfortune die, then talking about the muddy ground and adding another misfortune die, etc. It's a tool (a theme of WFRP 3e) to try to make things easier for the players and GMs to roleplay/narrate events.

What I like about challenge and misfortune dice is that they're a bit more tangibly unpredictable than a few concrete "-10"s.

...Unless there are no blank sides to misfortune and challenge dice... If that's the case then this post is pretty retarded.

Yeah,

I see forward how to describe the "misfortune" event that the enemy have some armor... the blow glanced on the armor or you missed?

And location? Locational armor? Aimed blow? Specific injuries are handled with specific cards?
Armor piercing wepon will remove misfortune dice (if are implemented)? Added complication to create a dice pool.
Armor and weapon damage?
I do damage with Agility (not even dexterity)? With a missile weapon?
The beastman will go from medium range (of a longbow) to melee range in one round?

When I talk of combat mood I think to this .... especially when the previous editions were a little more "earth based".