If you get more than one insanity during an act, you add tokens to your current insanity. At the end, you check and see if it's permanent with a WP check.

It doesn't say if there is a difficulty for the check, or if it is just a WP number of dice roll. It says you have to get a number of successes on the roll equal to the number of tokens. Does it mean, the number of tokens + the severity rating?

Never mind, I found it. The Severity Rating is for when the insanity is treated.

I'll assume the normal test to see if it is permanent is a 'simple', or <0> challenge.

But wouldn't it be a test vs. the number of tracking tokens? So if you had 2 tracking tokens on your temp insanity you would have to meet or beat 2 successes?

I will need to look up the insanity rules to give you a specific answer ... but I think that in WFRP you should always assume the difficulty is <P> (easy) not 0 (simple). That's seems to be more of the standard.

This looks like a pretty fundemental question that FFG could do with clearing up (unless it is in there already; i don't have rulebooks yet!).

Nez referred to the test as "normal" which i assume is a quote from the rulebook and when looking into thedefault spell difficulty thread, i found on the invocation example pdf that the spell casting test was referred to as "normal", so is this a phrase commonly used through-out the book?

if so, what does FFG mean when they say normal?

perhaps it does mean the difficulty it set completely by GM based on situation, but with a "default" of one <P>, unless the GM decides it's simple in which case it's 0 <P>?

I wish i had the rule books so i can properly contribute to these discussions!

dvang said:

That's a good question and one I'd really like cleared up. We had the same question for spell casting. Is there a default <P>, or do you just use the difficulty listed in the upper-left corner?

Well, here's the thoughts I posted in the spellcasting difficulty thread:

Admittedly, it doesn't explicitly state in the rules what the default difficulty is for spellcasting. It does state that for Melee and Ranged attacks the default is <P>. You then add any difficulty modifier on the card to this. So, what is printed on the card alone is not normally the entire difficulty of the action, merely an additional modifier.

For other actions:

- If it is an opposed test then the difficulty is based on the chart.

- If it isn't an opposed test, then the difficulty is up to the GM.

There are a few things to keep in mind:

A Simple task is one that typically should ALWAYS succeed. Generally, a task that is Simple will normally not even need a roll except in rare circumstances.

An Easy task is one that should succeed the majority of the time, but could have occasional failures.

For opposed checks, an action is only Simple if the "attacking" stat is twice or more than the defending stat, which will be pretty rare. Otherwise, the task is Easy <P> if the attacking stat is greater than, and Average <PP> if the stats are equal.

So, looking at the descriptions for the task difficulty levels, and the methodology for opposed check difficulty, it seems to me that spellcasting and manipulating the Winds of Magic is typically an Easy task. It's not a "given" for an apprentice to be able to automatically cast each and every spell they know, so Simple just doesn't seem right. Should it really be easier for an apprentice wizard to cast a spell than for a trained warrior to swing a sword, or just as easy when engaged in melee? Is it an "Easy" task for a spellcaster to cast a spell while engaged in melee, or would "Average" be more appropriate?

Yes, it really should be difficult for a wizard (especially an apprentice) to channel and cast in the same round, and especially if engaged in melee. That is why wizards can store up/hold extra power. In the 3 demos that I ran I used a default <P> for spellcasting, and I think the wizards still only failed to cast once. Magic dart went off a number of times, and both attempts at Pool of Darkness succeeded even being after a channel power action (and therefore using <PP>). Keep in mind that wizards are trained in Spellcraft, so get a [Y], in addition to their Order talent which gives them an additional [W] to casting spells of Rank 1.

So, technically, spellcasting is based on a difficulty assigned by the GM (since it isn't a melee or ranged attack, nor an opposed test). As a GM, consider what types of tasks/tests you'd assign a difficulty of "Simple". I, personally, wouldn't normally have spellcasting be Simple, especially for an apprentice. In fact, almost no actions that require rolls will I have be Simple.

That's why I'm planning on making the difficulty Easy for spells of the same rank, Simple for spells of lower rank, and Average/above for spells of a rank higher than the caster. Spellcasting shouldn't be inherently easier than melee, it's still a matter of wrestling and controlling the Winds of Magic and forcing them to create the desired effect. I might eventually reduce the difficulty if a spellcaster uses one spell more often than others, so becomes more adept at using that one spell, though. This method will allow a sense of progression along the casting ranks. Earlier (lower rank) spells are more easily mastered, where higher rank spells are more complex to cast.

This is all my opinion, of course. As a GM, you are free to allow spellcasting as a Simple task. I would recommend you take a moment to think about it, though, and what a Simple difficulty really means.

Interesting. My group plays tonight, so I'll try setting default difficulty to <P> and see what happens. I was thinking rolls might be a little easy anyway...

As noted, reasonable GMs will decide on different methods. Just putting my thoughts out there. . .

Let's look at a beginning Initiate of Sigmar. The player reasonably expects to be engaged in HtH combat, so begins with the following Characteristics: ST 3; TO 3; AG 2; IN 3; WP 4; FEL 4. This costs 17 points, leaving 7 for skills and such. Let's assume 1 for Wealth, 3 for Skills, 1 for Talents, and 2 for Actions.

Pretty reasonable for such a character.

The character tries to Curry Favor from 1 space into the Reckless stance. Is this a simple check?

". . . something so basic and routine that the outcome is rarely in doubt. Success is assumed for the majority of simple tasks." If you assume no challenge die, except the die on the card, then the outcome will always be indoubt more often than RARELY . You end up with a task that is equivalent to attempting to land a significant blow on a target that does not want to get hit. Assuming instead a challenge die, plus the one on the card, you end up with something that is Average ; or ". . . failure is not surprising." And this is just to gain some favor.

If you begin with the assumption that a challenge die is required to begin with, having to roll vs 2 challenge die moves this task to the equivalent of trying to hit someone with a sword who has Improved Dodge and is actively trying very hard not to get hit or

" . . . expect to succeed. . . slightly more often than he fails."

With three Blue, one Red, and one Yellow die, the odds of the above character successfully doing Curry Favor, followed by Righteous Strength while engaged with the enemy (and what priest of Sigmar wouldn't be?), moves into the you should expect to fail, thank you, try this task again in 5 rounds catagory. With one less Challenge die, this moves into the it ought to work, but don't be surprised if it doesn't area.

Which is where I'd prefer it to be for the first ten gaming sessions or so. I definately don't want the player to give up on the tactic because the chance of it working is too low to be worth it, when his character would do better just swinging the hammer than trying to do what his character was built to have a reasonable chance of succeeding at. Most spell effects are less powerful than a ST 4, WS trained warrior using his specialized weapon (and what warrior won't play 90% of the campaign with the same weapon type during close combat) and doing more difficult than his basic attack every round.

Like I said, just my version. Not trying to prove I'm right to anyone.

I heart Boris' math lessons.

We tried it tonight with the 'default <P>' on everything. There was no combat tonight, but lots of social interaction (and a few athletics/folklore/observation/intuition checks). There were a high number of failures compared to previous nights. Twice we had 4 rolls with <P> and only 1 success (observation isn't my parties strong point - both successes belonged to the mage).

Adding an extra <P> to spells seems to make a big difference in pass/fail.

Of course it will require more testing. I really hope we can get an official answer on this soon.

My problems at the moment are:

Is there a default <P> for casting (and other tests like insanity checks)?

-and-

Do divine casters get Piety and Invocation as starting skills (like arcane casters get Channeling and Spellcraft)?

Well, I suggest we look closely at the descriptions of Simple and Easy in the rulebook.

I don't have them in front of me right now, but the impression that I got was that if it is a Simple test, you normally don't even need to roll dice. So, unless there are a lot of mitigating circumstances (ie giving a bunch of ) a Simple observation test wouldn't even require the players to roll dice. "Success is assumed on the majority of Simple tasks". In fact, I would probably even argue that the only time you would roll a non-opposed Simple task is if the degrees of success had different effects, and in which case I would likely still assume a minimum of 1 success regardless if no successes are rolled. Unopposed Simple tasks are that easy.

Now, I believe the rules are, as I've mentioned, not that the default is Easy <P>, but that it is up to the GM's discretion for any task that isn't a melee/ranged attack or opposed test. I have no problem allowing the Curry Favor or Channel Power being Simple tasks. Those are obviously one of the first things that an initiate/apprentice learn, and are the foundation for everything they do. When casting a spell/blessing, however, I think it should be more difficult. Should it be easier for a wizard to cast a magic dart at an enemy than an archer to shoot his bow? An archer has a default <P>, a spell does not if you say it's a Simple task. Would it be as easy for a wizard to cast a spell while engaged in melee as it is for a fighter to swing his sword? Personally, I think a spell should be just as difficult to use as a ranged attack, and should be more difficult to use when while engaged as a melee attack is. Thus, spellcasting to me has a default difficulty of <P>.

Now, I think that when the wizard/priest is more experienced (increased Rank), then he has practiced enough and is experienced enough that those lower rank spells/blessings require less concentration (practice makes perfect!) and I'll probably them down to Simple.

I will also point out that it is supposed to be difficult for a wizard/priest to channel/curry favor in the same round as casting. That is why wizards can store excess power, and priests cast and then build up favor in subsequent turns. It should also be more difficult to cast while engaged in combat than it is to swing a sword. Both of those indicate to me that spellcasting/invocation should be treated like melee/ranged attacks with a standard <P> difficulty, which brings their difficulty in line with the majority of the other action cards.

@ NezziR: Your tests just seem like a string of bad luck ot me. A single <P> isn't particularly devastating. After all, how many misses do you see in combat? I haven't seen too many, although there have been a few. Granted, if everyone is Int 3 and neutral stance and untrained in Observation, then even an Easy <P> Observation check is a bit more difficult. Look at the demo adventure, though. It's a <PPPP> Observation check to see the package from outside. It's a <PP> check to hear the merchant when you are engaged with the coach, and <PP> to spot the package under the merchant's seat. I haven't read through the Intro adventure yet, but I'd look through it and get an estimate on difficulty levels (if any are given) for Observation tests. I bet you won't find a single Simple difficulty Observation check requiring a roll though. If a single <P> seems to be getting too difficult, I would counter by adding a [W] for environmental factors such as lighting, or the PCs being alert and roleplaying actively looking/watching out, etc. It also helps to have a player train the Observation skill