I have an interesting thought on this that could open up some varience.

What if all the monsters were leved 1-4 and the only difference between a level 4 monster and a level 1 is that the level 4 gets 4 passive purple to hit? The level 3 gets 3 passive purple when attempting to hit and so on.

And the heroes are a level = to their rank. So when the hit rank 2 they get 2 purple passive defense, rank 3, 3 purple, and so on.

I think it allows for making 4 different kinds of each monster

Mook

Standard

Veteran

Elite

And it's just as uping the purple dice for each version to hit them, while the PCs get better defense over ranks.

That's certainly scalable which is good, but there is one issue. As you/monsters increase in rank and get more purple the effect of reactive defence becomes less and less. Of course the parry could get some sort of buff as you level as well to fix this issue

I am going to wait and see what the whole nemesis thing is in the GM pack; perhaps FFG already have something in hand for this?

Definitely too D&Dish for me.

Levels ? I hate those.

A rank 4 Scribe shouldn't be harder to hit than a Rank 1 Scribe.

My two cents.

Expertise defence idea

For every skill level in a relevant skill (melee/athletics/discipline etc.) the player adds one purple and one black die to the attackers dice pool.
Default difficulty is 1d
Monsters have an expertise of their threat level divided by 2 rounded up or down at GM discretion
parry is an opposed roll with a default difficulty of 2d + misfortune for skill/special + the defence card.

Example with an experienced fighter fighting an equal opponent:
4 blue
4 green/red
3 yellow
2 white
5 black (2 defence + 3 expertise)
4 purple (1 default + 3 expertise)
This gives a basic hit chance of 80% against an opponent not defending and a 49% chance for 3 successes. That's fair, since hitting someone not actively defending shouldn't be harder.

Now if the opponent parries we get the following dice pool:
4 blue
4 green/red
3 yellow
2 white
7 black (2 defence + 3 expertise + 2 opposed roll skill/special)
6 purple (2 default for opposed + 3 expertise + 1 for parry)
This gives a basic hit chance of 53% and 22% for 3 successes. This also seems fair as one should assume that if two opponents are fighting and defending then there should be 50/50 chance for them hitting each other if they are completely equal.

Huge dice pools is the big downside to this but if I use the same system on the fighter one of my players created in the weekend I get the following success rates:
73% chance to hit an equal opponent not defending and 34% chance for 3 successes
46% chance to hit an equal opponent using advanced parry and 15% for 3 successes

The system hits new players slightly more, but looking at the numbers it's quite ok that the general hit rate against an opponent is slightly greater as they rank up. As long as it isn't the other way around.

All these numbers do not take into account bonus die from fortune, cards and other circumstances of course.

Success, damage and effects:
Any successes above 3 give extra damage. I allow players to pick multiple damage bonuses from successes. 4-5 successes would give the player +3 AND +1 damage. 6 successes would give 2x+3 damage on the card. That way it's more rewarding getting more successes. This gives more variety instead of damage just being either 9 or 11 for instance and no other result possible. Critical hits deal a number of hits equal to their severity, so if you draw a 3-critical you would draw three aditional normal wounds. You can only suffer the negative effects once from an action card.

Assisting in combat:
I do not allow assisting in combat to give other players an extra fortune die. Instead I allow another kind of defensive assist. If two players are engaged with the same npc one of them can assist the other allowing him to perform a parry or block for an attack against that player. This could lead to two blocks against one attack or even two blocks and two parries. The assisting player uses his free maneuver for this assist and he uses his active defence card(s) as well.

If you leave out the black dice the success rate rises to 90% (1 success) and 68% (3 successes) for the experienced guy. 67% and 37% in case of advanced parry.

Jericho said:

Well currently an version of scribe is as hard to hit as a fighter career at least from a passive defense standpoint. Although I agree, that should probably be addressed. As for levels being DnD, this game has levels, they are just cleverly called ranks to avoid you have to see the word level.

Sinister said:

I disagree on the cleverly disguised level concept, at least in so far as levels are typically used. Level mechanics typically work like this: a PC receives no incremental bonus to skills or stats until a level point has been reached. Once they reach the next level THEN all appropriate stats/skills are advanced, new powers gained, etc. It's somewhat ridiculous for there to be this windfall of advancement at some arbitrary point in a character's life as opposed to regularly and measuredly throughout.

In WFRP, skills, talents, stats and so forth are increased incrementally throughout. Ranks further simulate that a character must gain experience in using a skill sufficiently in order to become a master (they are limited to amateur status at Rank 1, experiences at rank 2, veteran at 3, and so on). The mechanical impacts as well as the justifications are quite different to my mind.

Levels are a symbol of your relative power in the game, ranks reflect that. Just because you got stuff after each session doesn't change the fact that you are lumped into a "rank" a relative power "level" measuring the heroes. It's really only a game design question. Technically speaking characters are getting better each time they gain xp in a level system like DnD, it's just that no one wants to break up the session after you kill each monster. Therefore the game says "this is when you'll do it", no different than this game, except this game chooses to do it after a session instead of at xp amounts.

You can only train skills once per rank... that's basic level stuff.

Hi Gallows and dear other forumers,

I thought about our discussions around here a lot, and then some question on this board kind of enlighted me. Ok, here I go, I'll try to make it short and simple :

1) That guy thought a characteristic was maxed at 6 (probably because there are only 6 "free" advancement slot on the character sheet). So I answered him quoting the rulebook, which says " 8 or more " and " no more than 5 at character creation" , then the FAQ : a characteristic is maxed at 10 because you may spend those 6 nonwritten advancement slot AND the 4 prewitten ones to enhance a characteristic. So here we are : 10 advancement slots = characteristics maxed at 10.

I guess you see where I'm going here...

2) Then I checked the bestiary to compare this to the greatest NPC we know yet. Ok, there probably be other powerful NPC later but we probably all agree that a CHAOS WARRIOR represents a VERY POWERFUL NPC in WARHAMMER UNIVERSE. Don't we agree ? In this same bestiary, he has a LOT of skull to represent his "dangerousness"

A Chaos Warrior's primary characteristics are 6 blue dices + some white dices. He has 1 skill training (1 yellow dice) and that's all. I say if a chaos warrior is 6, a PC simply CAN'T start at 5, and CAN'T get over 6.... 4 more times up to 10 ! That's not logical in this setting.

Then I checked all the creatures's statistics : always 6 or under, except form some Giant's or Troll's STR or TO which are 7 or 8... These huge overmusculed creature at 7 or 8... and a PC could be at 10 ? That's not logical in this setting. And I do think these particular creature's characteristics HAVE TO be always over a human/dwarf/elf. Come on, our PC's races can't be as strong as a Troll ?! They aren't dragons or gods, they're PC in a dark grim setting... By the way, Basic NPC are around 3.

3) We read here the dice system was quite good with starting characters and way too easy with experienced one because there is too much dice. If we limit the PC characteristics maximum so as it fits with WFRP3 bestiary's scale, it will balance the number of good and bad dices. That's all folks ! So here is what I propose :

HOUSERULE : NEW PC's CHARACTERISTIC MAXIMUM

• PC's characteristics can't be higher than 6 because you can't use prewritten advancement slot to upgrade a characteristic no more (so refuse the faq ruling).
  
• However, PC's primary characteristics checks still may be a bit higher than 6 by upgrading "fortune" in their careers.
• At creation, a PC character can't spend creation points in characteristic no more. He takes his racial basics and add +1 for each primary characteristic from his career. He only may spend creation points through the other items : wealth, skills, talents, actions cards...
• So, to keep it balance, a reiklander has only 7 creation points ; dwarfs, high and wood elves have 5 creation points.

(Oh, and could we speak about the success rate question on a less important number of threads, it's odd to read everywhere some questions related to the same subject...)

Finally, in my game, I use opposed check to set difficulty up, even in combat, as proposed p.58 rulebook : compare active characteristic and opposed characteristic = take 0 to 4 challenge dices. Then add 1 misfortune per relevant skill and per relevant specialization... +A/C/E dices for NPCs.

willmanx said:

I made that similiar in my group.

But instead lowering creation points I made a rule that:

- every characteristic that have base value of 2 cannot be higher than 4 at the creation, and maximum limit on that is 5

- every characteristic that have base value of 3 cannot be higher than 5 at the creation, and maximum limit on that is 6

That ensures, no human will ever have characteristic higher than 5, and non humans (like elves and dwarfs) will have no more than two characteristics of 6.

Some good input there willmanx. I have thought up something similar. I simply only give players a dice pool equal to half their characteristic, rounded down. That gives characteristic dice pools from 1-5, as I find even 6 dice to be much. Especially since you can only get 3 yellow from skills. This means that when someone has a strenght of 5 for instance he only gets 2 dice. co compensate for the half missing dice, characters get a bonus fortune die on odd levels (removed again when they get a new real characteristic die).

But the size of the characteristic dice pool certainly is the big issue. And yes fewer threads would be nice, but new ones pop up every day, and it will continue because GMs will notice and ask if it really is so tilted towards success.

Ok Sunatet and Gallows : here we really have something.

Gallows, dividing the dice pool is great, but what about being at 10 while a chaos warrior is 6 ?

Sunatet, I hadn't yet think about a different characteristic maximum since there are different starting characteristics... I think I like that characters can't raise characteristics at start with these limits... 2 of 5 or 3 of 6 is yet a lot, and you add 2 points from career's primary characteristics. In your rules, don't you think it's a lot of creation since there is fewer increase possibilities ?

Ok let's adjust that :

HOUSERULE : NEW PC's CHARACTERISTIC MAXIMUM (version 1.1)

• PC's characteristics can't be higher than 5 or 6 because you can't use prewritten advancement slot to upgrade a characteristic no more (so refuse the faq ruling). If the racial basic is 2, maximum is 5 ; if the racial basic is 3, maximum is 6.
• However, PC's primary characteristics checks still may be a bit higher than 6 by upgrading "fortune" in their careers.
• At creation, a PC character can't spend creation points in characteristic no more. He takes his racial basics and add +1 for each primary characteristic from his career. He only may spend creation points through the other items : wealth, skills, talents, actions cards...
• So, to keep it balance, a reiklander has only 7 creation points ; dwarfs, high and wood elves have 5 creation points.

Finally, in my game, I use opposed check to set difficulty up, even in combat, as proposed p.58 rulebook : compare active characteristic and opposed characteristic = take 0 to 4 challenge dices. Then add 1 misfortune per relevant skill and per relevant specialization... +A/C/E dices for NPCs.

Sorry, I did not stated clearly, that profession advancements are IN the limit.

So human starting with dockhand career will have base: 3 (2+1 for dockhand), 3 (2+1 for dockhand), 2, 2, 2, 2.

Form now on he cannot go higher than 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 on creation, and 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5 at the peak.

Dwarf in this case will start with base: 4 (3+1 for dockhand), 4 (3+1 for dockhand), 2, 2, 2, 2.

From now on while creating a character he cannot go higher than 5 on strength and toughness, 4 with other characteristics (5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4). Maximum attribute values are: 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5.

But You are right, after setting a cap, there are too much creation points (if you use them of course). I would maybe cut them in half (like 12-13 for humans, and 10 for non humans). My players favor actions and skills above attributes, so I'm not into cutting too much how much they can spend on that.

Right now, I'm still leading some quick one time scenarios with pregenerated characters, so I and my group could get a good grasp on rules, and make some house made ones that would replace the most problematic.

After that, my players will probably roll for characteristics anyways (6 times 2 white dice - for characteristics, I will allow them to assign the results as they like with the above caps in place, and 4 times 3 blue dice - for talents, actions, wealth, and skills, this they will just roll, and keep, I won't allow assigning here).

very interesting all of this.
could we also not simply just rise the buy of characteristics simply from the start
and also as suggested just top/max at 5 or 6 regarding races?

If I understand well at the moment if you want to ris a charac from 2 to 3 you would pay 3.
could we not think about something like this:

2 to 3: 5 creation points
3 to 4: 6
4 to 5: 7
5 to 6: 8

2 to 4: 5+11
etc

Also for a test we could also propose this:
You can't allocate more than 1/2 your total pool of characteristic dices (blue) into reckless or conservative stances.
example:
5 blue dices you could divide them like this:
5/2 = 2.5 so round down = 2 max dices in a stance.
3 blue + 2 red
3 blue + 2 green

4 blue charac dices:
max 2 red or 2 green

3 blue charac
max 1 red or 1 green

if you have to round down perhaps you could add an extra fortune dice:

5 blue dices you could divide them like this:
5/2 = 2.5 so round down = 2 max dices in a stance.
3 blue + 2 red + 1 white
3 blue + 2 green + 1 white

On this you add of course specialisation dices and fortune also when allowed.

for all the tests I would use opposition when needed (certainly for combat)
but would use purple dices instead of black onces for charac, defense and also specialisations.
I would also use 1 black misfortune die minimum for each action + adding an extra or 2 regarding circonstances.

This is simply an "sketchy" idea. I need to test this and your comments.

The thing in fact I dont like in the system is the low difficulty and also the tons of dices you could throw at medium or high level PJ...
i would like at max a player to throw 10-12 dices and that is a lot of dices for me... Its chaotic enough!

willmanx said:

I disagree to just change the characteristics's cost or number of dices because of the point I explained there. 1 to 10 for humans/dwarfs/elves PCs is irrelevant compared to the whole bestiary.

Please do check again these example : chaos warrior (6 in primary characteristics), troll and giant (7-8 in STR and To). The PCs can't be higher than that... It has no sense... and they can't start at 5 if they've got 6... That wouldn't respect the whole warhammer universe balance here.

I think I finally found a house rule that works, without making it impossible for a scribe with no weapon skill or much strenght to hit someone trained.

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp

This post will be redundant with the combat thread, but focused here to the nutshell of what we are all discussing (the too high level of characteristics for characters). Honestly, I do see a cap at 6 to be realistic and preferable. I like Sunaset (sp?) idea a lot, but I do not agree with how that cap should be set. The cap is an issue because it pigeon holes you by race. I would rather see a player be able to choose, upon reaching five two characteristics they can advance up to a six. This way the player can have more freedom in tailoring their character how they wish rather than the system dictating the decision for you. It makes things easier to manage.

As a counter-balance point, again I have not seen the system this high yet, I could see the need for being able to achieve the six as the overall maximum based on the contested roll chart. Double level means you can double a 3 making contested rolls easier. I could see that the maximum of six be allowed for all characters, but could be "rank capped" so to speak. The system puts a great deal of emphasis on these characteristics, but little on skills or talents which can easily make up the difference for "lower" characteristic scores. I also do not get these "high number" games being all that engaging as a roleplayer. I just do not see why "Epic" levels in DnD or characteristics of 8 - 10 really enhance the Warhammer experience. There is a limit what people can do and the system must always maintain that limit or else, we are just playing gods and there are other games for that that do it better than Warhammer or DND could ever do.

Sorry, finishing that side rant now. I do like Gallows idea of the divide in half mechanic as it strongly supports the contested roll system and gives a clearer interface for the dice. However, where I do see it flawed is one die, is not really an option in the mechanics. You need at least two base, one is just way too low. Two dice give a decent odd of success against easy tasks, but hard, hard rolls against average checks. Also, the scale is inflating numbers way to the high end. Needing a 7-8 for 4 dice is a bit crazy in my opinion, especially considering you cannot achieve that level until you are rank 3-4 (if I read advancement right). At bear minimum you would need, let us say starting at 5 13 Advancements, that means 13 game sessions, that means, for most people 13 weeks of time, which translates to 3 months of play. It seems a little steep. This is why the system Sunaset proposed is great.

I do think Sunaset is being a little gracious with starting characters. We started our Warhammer game at what could be considered below generation. Each player started with two in each characteristic. Racial modification was then applied. The characters then could advance up to two characteristics. If this raised a 3 to a four, fine. If this raised a 2-3, fine. The rest they could spend on getting talents, skills, etc. This number was cut in roughly half (as they were kids), but I do not see that as necessary for more experienced characters. This would give them more skills (and skills outside their career could be bought for an extra point). At rank one no characteristic could go over four. At rank two, no characteristic could go over rank five. At rank three, no characteristic over 6. That was the cap for characteristics (which we have yet to come close to reaching). I believe it is in the system as well, but we also restricted skills not being able to be higher than their rank (i.e. you can only have 1 checked box in a skill at rank one). At rank two, you can have two, etc. Remembering this also slows down the rate of advancement.

We actually found this system to be really good. The characters at low levels with skills and talents could pass a good number of checks, but still failed to hit, failed to act, etc. If we were to restart we would use the same mechanic, just rank one characters would start out the way we started our introductory characters. We would keep the same caps in place to slow down the rate of advance, with characters that were still capable of achieving what they wanted to. They had strengths and weaknesses and were not "stat-stacked" as the system pans out. The only thing we are kicking around is this overall mechanic, call it Commoners Common Law of Creation & Advancement:

Commoners Common Law of Character Creation & Advancement

At generation, a character automatically gains 2 in all six characteristics. Racial benefits are then applied. A character may then purchase two advances to any two abilities they choose (they can advance any 3 to a four and any four to a 3), and only two. The rest remains the same. (admittedly, creation points may need to be lowered somewhat, but that is yet to be worked out):

Characteristic and Stance Advancement works like this:

Rank one, you may only raise two stats to rank 4 and all stats may be increased to a 3. No more than one box in a skill.

Rank Two: All stats can go to four, only two can go to five. No more than two boxes in a career skill.

Rank Three: All stats can go to five, only two can go to six. No more than three boxes in a skill.

Rank Four: All characteristics can go to six.

Rank Five: All characteristics can go to six.

As for stance meter, this is what we did:

Each character gets one stance piece in both directions. The stance pieces shown on a career card are the maximum number of stances the character can get in those professions. To buy additional stance pieces costs the character an advancement. This way, characters are not stacked in their conservative and reckless dice and have to actually spend points to get more dice, rather than getting them for free. In addition, when you switch careers you do not lose stance pieces. You retain the ones you have. However, you can only advance stance pieces if the new career has additional stance pieces you do not have (i.e. if you had 2 reckless pieces and the new career gives you 3 reckless you may now purchase an additional reckless). We have yet to have a situation where a new career has less stance pieces, but we believe you may lose your old stance pieces purchased as you move into the career - to reflect the characters change of focus (i.e. the old career had 2 conservative and the new one only has one, you would then lose 1 conservative stance as you move into the career), but that is not set yet or anything like that.

These two factors are great and give more variance to the mechanic, while maintaining the integrity. If we restart (and when we do) this is the system we will be using. .

Thats a lot of very interesting ideas Commoner.

I like that, and to say the truth I'm all with you guys, but there is one little problem in my current group.

Munchkin dungeoncrawling power player, that already is a bit unhappy with some changes I've done, and even more, that after 3 sessions of play he didn't found any worthy loot, and not opened some golden chest (no worries, he's learning... the hard way ).

I need to make this game satisfying to more than just me, and 1-2 other players, hence (the mule) the generous approach (but I'm working on it ).

Except that, I like Commoner's idea very much.

Maybe I try to smuggle it somehow... or at least some less attribute affecting changes, like stance approach...

With my system you get a compensating fortune die for odd numbers (that is exchanged for a real characteristic die once you get to an even number).

That gives the following success rates if you have 3 in a stat, a furtune die in the stat (i only allow one fortune die for a stat), one point in a relevant skill.

1 blue, 2 white, 1 yellow, 1 purple = 65% chance (72% if you use a fortune point)

1 blue, 2 white, 1 yellow, 2 purple = 45% chance (53% if you use a fortune point)

1 blue, 2 white, 1 yellow, 3 purple = 30% chance (37% if you spend a fortune point)

1 blue, 2 white, 1 yellow, 4 purple = 20% chance (25% if you spend a fortune point)

That's for something you have trained in, but have an average stat for. I think most players will make sure they start with four in their main stat.

If it's something you haven't trained for:

1 blue, 2 white, 1 purple = 49% chance (58% if you use a fortune point)

1 blue, 2 white, 2 purple = 30% chance (38% if you use a fortune point)

1 blue, 2 white3 purple = 18% chance (24% if you spend a fortune point)

1 blue, 2 white, 4 purple = 10% chance (15% if you spend a fortune point)

You can add another 5-7% if someone assists you (helps searching etc.)

With only 2 in a characteristic and nothing else the rates become significantly lower with 25% for a 1d difficulty and 37% if someone assists you. But I feel this is quite fair as it promotes the best person for the job doing it and getting assisted by the rest.

Allowing the use of up to one stance die for checks outside of combat can also tilt chances of success in favor of new players with low stats and no training. The above 25% becomes 35% with a green die for instance.

But I think if you have a group where players compliment each other, then you get some good results with the rest of the group assisting. Personally to offset the starting chances being a bit lower I rule that assisting someone not trained or with limited skill is a lot easier and multiple assist dice can come into play. Also I allow players with significantly more combat related skills to use assist in combat to give those not so well trained a fortune die, although I generally don't allow assisting to get a fortune die in combat.

Awesome stance rule Commoner... I'll steal that one for my house rules

Hmm, you use opposed tests? How will your PCs ever beat chaos warriors, trolls and giants if they can't go above 5 in str then? The warhammer setting is full of examples of humans/elfs/dwarfs beating superior strength monsters. Since 3e use a system of ability+skill to determine the actual "power" I don't see how you can limit the ability scores in the way you're proposing.

A strength of 8 doesn't necessarily mean that the PC is stronger than a Troll when it comes to brute strength. It just means that the PC has learnt how to use his strength in the best possible way. In any test involving brute strength I would probably let the troll use S+T as characteristic to simulate the size difference.

Also, a character having a 10 in one characteristic will be completely useless in everything else. As GM I would probably let that player face situations where he cannot use that characteristic most of the times, just to hint that maybe he should not have made a "one-trick pony" character. As an example, lets say that a dwarf trollslayer starts with a str of 5 (maximum for starting chars), he has to spend 6+7+8+9+10 advances to get to 10, that's a whopping 40 advances (rank 5) and he has not been able to buy any other advances.

Honestly, I think you're way overboard on inventing houserules (both on this issue and the dice system problems), I wouldn't make such big changes to a system before playing in it for a long time.

Hehe I know what you're saying Grunti... but having played rpgs for over 20 years and almost 20 years with my current troupe I know my math doesn't lie

But the actual balance is a matter of taste of course.

Thanks for the compliment Sunatet. Glad you like them. You know, your munchkin can still munchkin away in the system I presented, he will just have lower numbers in his munchkin pursuits, just look at it that way, but will end up a power house as he wants to be. It isn't all that different then what you presented, just a little more graduated and more giving to players to choose their own options. One adendum a player has proposed to me, which I sort of like that after rank 4 you get to advance only 3 characteristics to rank 6, and at rank 5 only 4 characteristics to rank 6. I sort of like the idea a lot, but have not even come close to that level yet so I will find out when I get there, but since you plan on using it, I figure I would run it by you to see what you think about it.

I plan on posting these rules up with my big book of house rules after I feel I've play tested them enough to assert their merits and their flaws. Since the thread deals with this idea specifically, I figured it best to shoot them up now. I also have revisions for: Career repitition, Fatigue/Stress revisions, no recharge on action cards period (unless they have the effect: While this card is recharging), success based damage, revision of conservative/reckless dice, healing revision, critical damage revision, combat resolution revision. I hope to get them in the next week or so, as they are now mostly fine-tuned.

Don't get me wrong. love this game, I do, but view it as horribly constructed. So many aspects are fantastic and sometimes it gets lost in some of the muck. I don't feel it had a clear design principle, rather a throw a bunch of stuff at it and see what comes out. The rulebook is not so much a rulebook to me, more of a guideline on how the came could be, a toolkit I am supposed to manipulate to deal with so many glaring inconsistencies and haphazard design. Sometimes, I feel like I am supposed to sit down and play the game with the designers to get a feel of how it should be played, and even then, I think there would be a very different rule set. Still love it to death.

I am also glad you're actually going to try to sneak it into your group, I think you will really enjoy it. It does fix the scaling problem and gives an incentive to players to advance while maintaining the sensibility of the system and keeps pools to practical size and practical use, with a descent rate of failure still.

Right, back to the topic at hand, I see your point Gallow, but at the same time, you suggest the 2 blue is weak in my mechanic, however, your system also operates under the assumption of a yellow die actually existing. Also where do you pull the 2 white from? I don't see where you are getting that at all? A specialization for the second white? A skill box only gives one yellow. Your half step gives one white. You also cap on the low end too far, pushing the game solely toward the high end and a series of games. Also gaining a white die to lose a white die is a great idea, don't get me wrong, it just adds some complexity that I do not see as warranted only to achieve only to compensate a higher numerical arc (7, 8, 9, 10). If you are looking to cap at five, cap at five. If two blue is too low, then one blue and one white (with nothing else) is considerably lower than the success rate of 2 blue. Don't forget that one or both blues can convert into greens and reds too, which a white die cannot do, thus improving rate of success by the character having to be reckless or conservative. Your system stagnates this by only one blue die to convert which will always be defaulted to a red or green because players will quickly realize their abysmally low success rate at low levels. It also promotes nitching of characters which means I will spend all my points to raise 2-3 relevant stats since I need at least a 6 to have a chance in hell of being able to actually succeed at anything difficult. This means stat-dumping will be in full effect for the sake of higher ratio of chance of success.

Ultimately, all you are really doing in this system is shifting a scale of 1-5, to a scale of 6-10. Players will want to shoot out of ranks 1-5 (because they are abysmal) and shotgun to 6-10 so they are not so abysmal. You even state that with only a 2 blue the odds of success become significantly lower with 25% if someone assists you a 37%. So your solution is to start all characters out at that level for most stats since it takes at least a 4 to get 2 blue. 2 blue and 1 white is not really much of an improvement, since it is the same as an assist, so every character, against 1 difficulty will have roughly a 37% chance of success as you suggest from the bonus white die for the assist. For the first ten sessions or rank (1), there will be a huge amount of failure with non-combat stats where players are constantly missing, falling, failing to realize where they left their pen (lol). In a nutshell, while the white die is a nice idea, it is not practical. Furthermore, why should I pay 5 advancements or creation points to get one bonus white die, when I can spend one advancement for a yellow die or one advancement for an action card or a new talent that gives me one white die to mutliple talents? Just so I can get three characteristic dice? So it is 11 advancements now which means i could have bought 11 skills, 11 actions, 11 talents, 11 of whatever else suits my fancy? That is just insane. If you want Characteristics to cost more in this scale, just make them cost more experience wise rather than having a conversion mechanic simply to limit the number of dice. This advancement cost principle is a fundemental flaw in the idea because the cost for one white die (for a characteristic) is weighted way beyond its actual benefit when so many other parts of the system have a greater benefit for a considerably less cost. It just does not make good sense. You do strongly support these half steps, I get that, but a rank three is one white and one blue which is less effective than the 3 blue, you see?

Honestly, if you want all your players to start with roughly 2 dice, take a real look at Commoners Law of Creation and Advancement and you will see I am coming from the same assumption, but on a much gentler scale and one which does not need two set of stats for players to reference for rolls and statistical comparison. Players need room to maneuver and will always reference the cost versus the value of what they are paying out from their hard earned advancements. My math also limits the high end greatly without killing the little guy off and throwing him out the window. It also works without having to tweak monster stats. In your system will a Chaos Knight have 6 characteristic dice or 3? It is a worthy question to ask yourself. Conversions like you are suggesting will mean a conversion, on some level, of the entire system and also does not support players who want to play a game for three years just to be able to roll five dice. One offs, short campaign and short games need to give those low end players some real fun for the short time those characters will exist, Common Law accounts for that, your system does not. Don't get me wrong. I love your work and your ideas, just this one, isn't quite up to code with the rest of them. I am not meaning to tear you down, just pointing out why I disagree with it fundementally and trying to help you not make a choice which will ultimately be more problematic than I think you are seeing.

gruntl said:

I agree with you here grntl. That is why I use a lower gradiance. However, you do not need a ten strength against a troll with a ten strength at rank five though however, as Gallows and others have pointed out. If by rank five you had lets say 6 characteristic dice and you have to arm wrestle a troll with a 10 strength. The troll is not double you, but is higher so you get three purple die. You get six characteristic dice, 3 yellow for athletics, then convert five characteristic dice to reckless dice since you are a giant slayer, so you roll five red,1 blue, 3 yellow against 3 purple. Your odds are pretty darn good you will beat him. With ten characteristic dice, you have 5 blue, 5 red, 3 yellow against 2 purple. you don't just beat the troll, you rip his arm off. You see the point of what we are suggesting? The system does need some type of cap and it is horribly flawed in design at the high end. High End characters in this are equivelent to Epic Levels in DnD, they are unstoppable nearly at everything they do. Ten characteristic (just straight blue) + 3 yellow against 4 purple will just murder almost every roll they make before characteristic dice are converted, let alone after they switch them all to conservative and have a go at it. I get what you are saying about the advancement cost, but really, is it even necessary in the first place? Monster stats are interfaced with player stats, but they are not the equivalent of player stats since they lack things such as talents, skills, etc. The number is designed to overall represent an ability, but not actually be the ability. Players have a different set of rules they play by which gives them an edge over monsters by yellow dice alone.

I see your point. It would be easier just limiting stats to 1-6, but that means upping the experience cost for raising stats, plus changing starting stats. One way of doing it is to limit starting stats to racial starting stats at character creation. That means that a dwarf can double their strenght. Not bad really. Damnit, I thought my rules were final, but I'm getting hot on this now, because I see the effect of that giant having 8 strenght being truly fearsome. Also your point about conversion it pretty good. With your system, it's not needed.

Also I made some calculations and with my "default difficulty based on rank" and "Chaos stars when reactive defence used equals miss" rules, the extra two dice from 4 isn't that big a deal. Also your stance limiting rule makes it even more balanced, because it's those stance dice that really unbalance things at higher rank. I use these rules instead of opposed rolls, because I feel they hit beginning characters much harder than my system.

Exellent... thanks for another round of great input

My idea for the rule:

• Characters can't use creation points on characteristics, but always start at their racial level. Humans start with 9 creation points and dwarves/elves start with 6 points. You can never raise your characteristic more than 3 over your racial starting value. Humans can however select one characteristic as their main one, to allow for one extra potential point. No characteristic can be higher than your starting value plus your rank (humans have one special).

That's how my rule tuns out. That means there is still room for improvement from character creation. I am undecided on the cost of advancements for characteristics. I thought about double, but that's pretty steep. On the other hand they will be able to get to max level in a characteristic pretty quick. I went with a similar rule to your advancement rule, although simplified to just rely on rank.