Has anyone had a combat where the attacks were treated as an opposed check? I imagine a duel would be suitable. If so, how did it go?

The system isn't built for that. Two equal stated characters would end up with 2 purple dice as base difficulty if you use the Opposed test rules. Plus the difficulty of the cards... you won't get many successes !

Skywalker said:

Yeah, I do it all the time. It works well.

A lot of the action cards have attacks that are opposed checks. Are you talking about changing all attacks to opposed checks? I can't really see the point of doing that, it will just make combat either a lot deadlier or a lot easier (depending on opposition).

Or do you mean running combat in story mode or/and with some kind of progress tracker? I guess it would work fine to use opposed tests in that case, you just have to balance the die results properly.

The system is theoretically balanced assuming a default difficulty of 1 challenge die for normal attacks. Always using opposed test potentially skews the need for high Strength and Agility since these are the basis for most melee and ranged attacks. The rules do say, "The default difficulty for Melee Attack and Ranged Attack actions is Easy (1d), but may be modified by a variety of factors. The GM may decide the action in question is better served as an unopposed or opposed check." The key words IMO are "the action in question". I prefer to interpret this as meaning that the character is trying something other than a basic Ranged or Melee Attack, such trying to push an opponent off of a balcony or an attack intended to subdue an opponent rather than cause damage. For actions that are "vs. Target defence" there is no defined Characteristic to use for making an opposed check, leaving the GM to house rule this. In addition, since I don't see an upside to making all checks opposed checks, I prefer the speed of using the default of <P> for most combat attacks.

Cheers for the answers. In case it wasn't clear from my post, I am not suggesting this be done for all combat rolls. I was wondering if it could be done in some specific cases for good effect. For example, in a formal one on one duel where you may want to highlight a much longer exchange of attacks and defences.

I do all combat rolls opposed because so it reflects the skill of the opponent my group love it. And the players got an impresion how skilled there opponents are.

Ribuk said:

and this why i will implement that as well. The default 1d seems too easy

Aren't combats slower because of that ? Less successes, less crits, less damage = longer and duller combats ? Does it not ?

Jericho said:

Well, I don't think WFRP combats are dull generally, just because there is so much going on. I guess it makes them slightly longer. But I think it is worth taxing the players in that they need to concentrate their fire, so to speak, against the high-stat oponents, and burn every advantage they can think of.

And generally against the weaker opponents, it does make the opponents' job harder, but that is mitigated by the fact that weaker foe come in larger groups, and therefore the excess foe will use the conventional difficulty, coz I only use opposed checks when the defender is concentrating on the single attacker.

We did have one combat that dragged, but I had a friendly NPC taking on the mob-leader (while the PCs took out the mob), which is never a good idea in any system, ime. And I had poorly prepared my NPC, so I believe that was much more down to me than the probabilities.

Shemov said:

Have you done any analysis to support this? How do you intend it to interact with things obtained later like the Improved Defences?

Here's my quick attempt. Warning bad math included

1. Let's assume that modifers by way of fortune and misfortune dice are relatively evenly applied.

2. <B> have a 50% of a success. {R} and {G} have a 70% of success. To make it easier I am assuming an even spread between characteristic dice and reckless/conservative dice, giving a 60% chance of success.

3. <P> are roughly equivalent to 1.25 <B>, {R} and {G} in terms of successes. To hit reliably someone who is unarmoured and not trying to avoid being hit (1<P>) you need 2 Strength or Agility .

4. are roughly equivalent to to .5 <B>, {R} and {G} in terms of successes. Defence Action (Parry, Block and Dodge) add 1 or 2 to an attack. To hit reliably someone who is unarmoured and trying to avoid being hit (1<P> + 1 or 2 ) you probably need 3 Strength or Agility.

5. Improved Defence Actions add 1 or 2<P> to an attack. To hit reliably someone who is unarmoured and trying to avoid being hit and is good at it (2 or 3<P>) you probably need 4 Strength or Agility.

6. Armour and Shields also impacts on Defence. Armour tends to add 0 or 1 Defence and Shields 1 or 2 Defence. This roughly translates into another +1 Strength or Agility.

7. Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill IIRC have a 66% of success. This roughly translates into an -1 Strength or Agility.

8. Many Action Cards produce a regular hit on 1 success, which has the probabilities above. However, a superior hit needs 3 successes, which requires a +3 Strength or Agility to achieve.

To summarise:

• 2 Strength/Agility = hit target that is not trying to avoid being hit
• 3 Strength/Agility = hit target that is trying to avoid being hit

I can see how those values can be seen as too low.

My concern about making all Combat an opposed test is that this adds +2<P> straight away or almosty needing 2 to 3 more <B>, {R} and {G} off the bat. This produces:

• 4 Strength/Agility = hit target that is not trying to avoid being hit
• 5 Strength/Agility = hit target that is trying to avoid being hit

Needing Strength 4 to reliably hit someone who isn't trying to avoid being hit seems odd. There is also the danger that by starting with a higher baseline that the ends of the scale become more extreme.

Interesting though.

I would assume that if the opponent is not trying to avoid being hit is when you use the 1 <P> typical attack.

If the opponent is trying to avoid being hit, I would always make it opposed.

My only question is, what are people using for the "target defense"? Agility? Defense from armor/items? Both added together?

I've been using both agility+defense from equipment for the number, but I'm not sure this is covered in the guide.

Puer said:

Cool. Are you making any other changes to the RAW to reflect your approach? I can see the increase in the default difficulty causing issue in some of the more extreme cases.

Puer said:

Defence is only obtained from Armour and Shields. Defence doesn't represent your ability to avoid a hit. It represents your ability to turn a hit into one that does no damage. As such, Agility isn't relevant but Armour/Shields are.

Puer said:

So you have changed the RAW by increasing Defence by Agility and turning each strike into an opposed check ? That would certainly make PCs more robust. How has it worked out so far?

So what "according to the RAW" (which I have read several times and still can't find an answer from) are you using for the "target defense" when you are making an opposed check which is "vs. target defense" ?

My method seems to be working alright, and as it is the only method I have used, I cannot comment on how it compares to other methods.

Puer said:

My reading of RAW is that most Melee and Ranged Attacks have a default difficulty of 1<P> and are normally not opposed. If the Action Card says "vs Defence", then that number is normally 0 unless they are wearing Armour or Soak.

I think opposed rolls should generally be called for in specific combats such as formalised duels.

It appears then, that I have been making things rather difficult. I'll try out your method, but it sounds as if I will have to up my number of baddies to keep things extra dangerous.

Puer said:

Actually it increases the lethality for the PCs as much as the NPCs. As such, it should make combat all round more lethal

FWIW this is from the FAQ (emphasis mine):

"Unless indicated otherwise, the default challenge level for Melee Attack and Ranged Attack actions is Easy (1d). Unless indicated otherwise, the default difficulty for other actions, such as casting a spell or invoking a blessing, is Simple (0d). The GM is still the final arbiter of a task’s challenge level, and may adjust these to suit the story and the particular task at hand.

An action that is listed as “vs. Target Defence” is not an opposed check – it is based on the Easy (1d) default difficulty, similar to how Melee Attack and Ranged Attack actions are resolved. In addition to this default difficulty, the dice pool may be modified by the target’s Defence rating, as well as by the action’s difficulty modifier.

The dice pool for a check may be further influenced by the action’s difficulty modifier. An action that is opposed by a target’s characteristic uses the opposed check difficulty rules rather than the default challenge levels noted above."

Skywalker said:

Dont forget though that ' isn't trying to avoid being hit ' only means they are not using an active defense right? They are still trying to avoid being hit they just aren't adding to the game mechanics difficulty.

I just want to make sure that we realize that you don't need ST 4 to hit a target who isn't moving!

Keeping that in mind is needing to have ST 4 to reliably hit that bad. The opponent is still defending themselves, just nothing ontop of the standard difficulty.

I really like the idea of opposed roles for combat. The only problem I see is that it is probably going to lead to fewer hits which means less damage being done so combats are going to take longer. Maybe more potentional to increase damage?

The other issue, as others have mentioned, is what STAT do you oppose with. STR is already getting a double dip and AGI is very useful outside of combat but they are realy the only two that make much sense.

We have played 3 sessions so far and had a few fights. No one has missed an attack yet. Not one miss with either us attacking or the NPCs attacking back.

Having said all the the officail rules is that it is an easy test in the errata

AaronC said:

It is actually ST 2 to reliably hit a target who isn't actively trying to avoid being hit. 1<P> roughly equals 1.25 <B>/(G)/®.

If a target is immobilised in some way, I am guessing that this would justify the reduction of the Difficulty to 0d.

Sorry, I was refering to your calculation were you looked at the opposed check. 2 STR to hit normally is why my game isnt seeing any misses.

I have some ideas of how I might handle it but its probably more relevant int he house rule section so I'll go awa y and have a think and I might post some ideas there.

AaronC said:

ST 2 is the rough threshold to hit someone who is aware of the attack but isn't actively trying to avoid being hit. I am not sure that its an unreasonable benchmark.

Combat is already an opposed check: the gear and relative training determine misfortune/challenge dice.

Remember that everything has access to the dodge/block/parry cards, and if you are fighting something with a decent defense that is a challenge dice + 3 or 4 misfortune dice.

Plus, a GM might have his PC's face combat trained soldiers, meaning more challenge dice might be added due to Improved dodge/block/parry

Skywalker said:

PeekItUp said:

Technically, no it isn't, though I understand the point you are making.