Thanks for pointing those out Armoks. I was going off some notes I took from the cards/pages, rather than the actual stuff since I was at work most of the time. I whipped it up kind of in a hurry. Still, the majority of those 'mistakes' won't have a big effect on the overall results.

1) Ah, I missed that. The troll still has a good chance of getting at least 1 success with 9 dice, though.
2) I did forget about that. It would certainly help the Slayer hit a bit better.
3) Hmm... I'll need to check the card. I'm not sure what you are saying, though. I think I did forget that Vomit has something to do with To ... but I'm not sure offhand why that would add a to the roll.
4) Yes, I did forget the ® for the stance for the discipline check. Oops. That would certainly help vs the insanity. Although if I recall, most of the failures were such that a single success result would not have succeeded the test.
5) That was a mis-type. I meant to say parry. The Troll never dodged, only parried, but I did accidentally write dodge instead of parry at one time. I thought I had corrected that, but apparently not.
6) He was saving the fortune point should his next turn come up or he need it for something else. Typical of a player. Even if he used it to strengthen his attack in the 2nd round, it would have had made no difference in the outcome of the combat, even if a success on the die would have caused the attack to succeed.

So, I'll rerun this test, along with that of my 4-pc rank 2 group, and see how it goes. Even with the new changes, I don't see it changing significantly. I'll even try a test adding weapon specialization and a fortune die for St and see how that ends up. Of course, maybe I'll try the Troll using Double Strike too.

Remember, though, we are talking about a Troll-slayer tooled up for combatting big bad monsters. He's got the max St and To, as much Weaponskill and specialization and bonuses to melee combat he can get, etc. He should be good at what he does, which is melee. The monsters in the beastiary are basic versions, designed for 'run of the mill' characters. Take 3 PCs with a 3 St and 3 To, and leather armor and see how well they'll fare. Hmm, maybe I'll do that test too. Anyway, my point is, as I posted earlier, if you've got a tooled up combat PC/party, then you need to tweak monsters a little to compensate if you want combats to be challenging. Add more Wounds, more Soak, more Defense, more A/C/E, use other action cards, etc. You make enemies more unpredicatable as well as unique, as well as scaling them to fit your group better.

Remember D&D and their CR rating system. A PC group of lvl 4 (say) gets matched up with a CR 4 enemy. That enemy is actually *not* a real challenge for the PCs. It was designed to use up 1/4 (I think it was) of the PC's resources, not to threaten to kill them. So, it damage 1/4 of their HP, use up 1/4 of their spells, etc. For a true "this combat could kill you" encounter for a fully rested party, you had to tweak the encounter somewhere from 3-4 times that CR rating.

Haven't played yet, but dvang's trial combats, while a little flawed, do seem to indicate a trend. While a starting trollslayer can kill a troll, he needs to get lucky. This guy is about as twinked for trollslaying as you can get and still doesn't really stand a chance. Even if he wins he'll be in poor shape. Basically it'll be an epic smashfest in which the hero barely survives by the skin of his teeth.

Seems about right to me.

A single troll should be the perfect enemy for a typical band of characters in their first career. A party of PCs might be hired to kill a troll that's been pestering the locals, for example. As they'll probably be fighting the beat in it's 'lair' it might have some extra advantages - for example a River Troll fighting in a river. The water hinders the PC's movement, adding black dice to their attacks. But for more experienced groups a single troll isn't going to be too much of a challenge (still something of a threat - they can dish out some serious damage).

Armoks said:

One of the advantages, though, is that the Reckless die gives the possibility of scoring 2 or 3 successes more often when successes are rolled. to get 3 successes on <BBB> you need all 3 dice to show a success. 2 successes require 2 dice.

The reckless die has the chance to score 2 successes on 1 die, and three successes on 2 dice.

So, while the average overall works out pretty even with <BBB>, I think it is skewed more towards a 'big or none' result.

So, I did 100 rolls with <BBB> and broke it out into success per roll. Then, I did the same with <B>®[W]

<BBB> has 163 successes total, <B>®[W] had 157 successes total

(#of successes) = <BBB> // <B>®[W]

(0) = 8 // 19

(1) = 35 // 32

(2) = 43 // 31

(3) = 14 // 13

(4) = 0 // 6

Now, of course these numbers are still a slim sample. A larger sample will be more accurate. I've seen both sets of dice produce total # of success rolls as low as 140 or so, and as high as 170 or so. So, the total # of successes between the two roll seems pretty even, actually, with the <B>®[W] being slightly lower on average (it seems). Where the difference lies, really is in the low and high. The <BBB> has a more median range in the 1-2 success per roll. The <B>®[W] has fewer 2's, but more 0's and 3+'s on a roll. There is also an additional advantage, in that <B>®[W] can actually roll 4 -successes, while the <BBB> cannot, which is an auto-win for the Troll even if the PC rolls 3-successes. The disadvantage, of course, is that the [W] die is less likely to produce a success result, along with the Reckless die having Bane sides, which leads to an increase in 0 success results.

Interesting stuff.

saved by the new characteristics limitation at 6.

Now players won't be stronger than trolls, and they may fear chaos warriors

Hi, try to do some tests, but instead of pre-generated character use my Player’s Troll Slayer.

ST 5 + fortune dice, TO 4, AG 3, INT 3, WP 3, FEL 2; Soak: 1(1)

5 EXP: Weapon Skill and Resilience trained, Specialisation with onehanded axes, 4 th reckless stance piece purchased, 15 Wounds. No talent cards.

Slayer strategy:
Troll Slayer spams Double Strike. He will use his active defenses early to protect himself. Since the Slayer has a 3 WP he will jump at 3rd Stance piece from the beginning but he’ll afford 2 Stress this way. 1 [W] fortune point will be used to add to his Initiative, because he want to be sure that he’ll act first. Rest of fortune points should be saved until necessary.

==============================================

I did a test:

Init:
Troll <B>®[W] =>
1) 2x successes
2) 4x successes
3) 1x success
4) 2x successes
5) 1x success
6) 2x successes
7) 1x success
8) 3x successes
9) 2x successes
10) 2x successes

Chance of 3 or more successes: 0.1833 (0.1000)
Chance of 2 or more successes: 0.4833 (0.3500)
Chance of 1 or more successes: 0.8333 (0.7500)
Chance of no successes: 0.1667 (0.2500)

( ) = without a 1 [W]

Chance of 3 or more boons: 0.0417
Chance of 2 or more boons: 0.1625
Chance of 1 or more boons 0.4333
Chance of no boons: 0.4417
Chance of 1 or more banes: 0.1250

Slayer <BBB>[W] =>

1) 2x successes
2) 4x successes
3) 3x successes
4) 0x successes
5) 3x successes
6) 2x successes
7) 0x successes
8) 2x successes
9) 1x success
10) 3x successes

Chance of 3 or more successes: 0.2500 (0.1250)
Chance of 2 or more successes: 0.6250 (0.5000)
Chance of 1 or more successes: 0.9167 (0.8750)
Chance of no successes: 0.0833 (0.1250)

( ) = without a 1 [W]

Chance of 3 or more boons: 0.0391
Chance of 2 or more boons: 0.2266
Chance of 1 or more boons: 0.6484
Chance of no boons: 0.3516

Troll goes first 4 times, and Slayer 6 times

Have in mind that Troll have to roll 1 success above the Slayer’s successes net in order to act first. As you can clearly see everything is up to fate, but Troll Slayer has a higher probability to act before Troll.

==============================================

Troll Round 1, River Troll goes first:
Devastating Swing, Slayer parries using Improved Parry (<P>) and Dodge (), Troll adds Expertise die and 1 [W] from A pool.

Troll's dice pool <BBBBBB>®[WW][Y][bB]<PPP> =>

Chance of 3 or more successes: 0.4273
Chance of 2 or more successes: 0.5946
Chance of 1 or more successes 0.7461
Chance of no successes: 0.2539

Chance of 3 or more boons: 0.1824
Chance of 2 or more boons: 0.3426
Chance of 1 or more boons 0.5379
Chance of no boons: 0.1854
Chance of 1 or more banes: 0.2767
Chance of 2 or more banes: 0.1385

Slayer Round 1, Slayer goes first:
Double Strike, troll parries () and adds 2 , Slayer jumps at 3rd stance piece and adds 1 [W] using fortune point, +2 stress points.

Slayer's dice pool: <P><BB>(RRR)[Y][WWWW][bBBB]

Chance of 3 or more successes: 0.5619
Chance of 2 or more successes: 0.7331
Chance of 1 or more successes 0.8578
Chance of no successes: 0.1422

Chance of 3 or more boons: 0.2121
Chance of 2 or more boons: 0.3722
Chance of 1 or more boons 0.5643
Chance of no boons: 0.1823
Chance of 1 or more banes: 0.2535
Chance of 2 or more banes: 0.1199

Great chance of rolling exertion.

==============================================

As far as I know in a River Troll vs. Troll Slayer fight will win this one who will go first.

macd21 said:

How about saying that a Troll needs luck to win with a Slayer?

A single Troll won't be a demanding task for three rank 1 Fighters, but it'll be a lethal encounter for social oriented Players which is good.

IMO, social oriented Players shouldn't even think about a possibility of fighting and winning with the Troll before a rank 3. Futhermore, Troll shouldn't be a worthy opponent for a characters with 5 EXP even if their are combat oriented, because I can't imagine how strong Players will became at rank 3 or higher. What monsters will they encounter, Dragons?

Armoks said:

By rank 3 a single troll shouldn't be a threat to a group of adventurers. They are strong but dumb adversaries - more like a kind of vermin than an antagonist. If PCs face them at rank 3 they should probably be the pets of other antagonists - such as a goblin tribe or the like. Thus they would be just one part of an encounter, not the focus of it.

Rank 3 characters are pretty elite. There's always something you can throw at them. The corebox focuses on providing them with threats for their 1st and 2nd ranks, I think we'll need to wait until more boxes come out before we see a lot of suitable threats for higher ranked PCs. But by rank 3 they should be taking on powerful warlocks/necromancers, chaos champions, scheming nobles, vampire lords etc.

dvang said:

3) Vomit: Resilience(TO) vs. Target Defence. 2 due to a basic difficulty and 1 due to the Dwarf's defence rating.

willmanx said:

Is that a house rule?

In the errata. Since you have only 6 open advances available you can only get to 6 in a stat.

Page 3 FAQ: "Since there are only six Open Career Advance lines on the General Career Advances portion of the advancement worksheet, a primary characteristic cannot be increased above 6."

I should also point out that it is commonly held by many that the Double Strike action is slightly "broken", and at the very least should have a recharge of 2.

dvang said:

And ditto for Rapid Shot

dvang said:

Yes I'd switch the recharge rate with the Nimble strike. I don't get why it should be slower to use your agility to attack rather than your strenght. and its the only attack actually favors the agile warrior compared to brute strenght warriors.

dvang said:

And that's the point. Some cards are more or less broken, some unbalanced. Nevertheless, it should be spotted by beta testers and fixed. I will not believe that nobody realized that a 1 as a basic dificulty for Double Strike is not enough. Moreover, I can't understand why they created such a powerful card like a Rapid Shot, even posibility of gaining fatigue points is not enough, IMO.

Some monsters seem to be broken as well. When Players can smash Troll's face within 1-3 rounds, it must be something wrong in the rules, IMO. I can't even show my Players Trolls' sheer stupidity, becouse I simply don't have a time to do it.

I don't agree with some things about Trolls:

1) Regeneration: Why only 1 normal wound at the end of each round? Compared with Troll's regeneration in 2 edition, it's rather poor result.

2) Trolls have got only 19 wounds, they should have more.

3) River Trolls wield tree trunks as clubs. OK, that's nice, but why this weapon deals only 5 damage? I'm aware of that Trolls also fight using theirs claws as a weapon, but still 5 damage is not enough.

4) Stone Trolls' skin: "Weapons have been known to break upon striking the granite-hard surface of a stone troll's skin." And again, look at the stone troll's soak - only 3, it's less than the Plate armor. Somebody can tell that Trolls have high TO. That's right, but Players are also able to increase theirs TO to 6. So when a Dwarf has 6 To should I say that weapons can break upon his skin?

Yes, I know, I'm complaining about nothing, becouse I can house rule everything. However, I would be very pleased if FFG wrote in ToA a sentence or two, about how monster's stats can change.

Cheers

Armoks said:

This is a real cause for concern for me. I've actually postponed buying the game until I know more about the game's possible brokeness. I don't mind houseruling a few rules but if I have to redesign most of the core rules then for me the game is broken too much.

Some monsters seem to be broken as well. When Players can smash Troll's face within 1-3 rounds, it must be something wrong in the rules, IMO. I can't even show my Players Trolls' sheer stupidity, becouse I simply don't have a time to do it.

I think this topic has been thoroughly dealt with and for me isn't a problem.

I don't agree with some things about Trolls:

1) Regeneration: Why only 1 normal wound at the end of each round? Compared with Troll's regeneration in 2 edition, it's rather poor result.

2) Trolls have got only 19 wounds, they should have more.

Simply change te numbers around. This isn't major redesigning.

3) River Trolls wield tree trunks as clubs. OK, that's nice, but why this weapon deals only 5 damage? I'm aware of that Trolls also fight using theirs claws as a weapon, but still 5 damage is not enough.

Can't you just increase the damage rating?

4) Stone Trolls' skin: "Weapons have been known to break upon striking the granite-hard surface of a stone troll's skin." And again, look at the stone troll's soak - only 3, it's less than the Plate armor. Somebody can tell that Trolls have high TO. That's right, but Players are also able to increase theirs TO to 6. So when a Dwarf has 6 To should I say that weapons can break upon his skin?

I think this is just poetic licence and isn't meant to simulate the rules.

Yes, I know, I'm complaining about nothing, becouse I can house rule everything. However, I would be very pleased if FFG wrote in ToA a sentence or two, about how monster's stats can change.

I think you raise some valid points. Points I need to research, personally.

Cheers

Armoks said:

Double strike has a basic difficulty of <P>+<B>

The standard difficulty of attacks (except spells) is one challenge die. Anything on the action card is added to this.

Gallows said:

Yes, I know. I mean that insted of should be another <P> or something.

Rat Catcher said:

I think this topic has been thoroughly dealt with and for me isn't a problem.

I don't agree with some things about Trolls:

1) Regeneration: Why only 1 normal wound at the end of each round? Compared with Troll's regeneration in 2 edition, it's rather poor result.

2) Trolls have got only 19 wounds, they should have more.

Simply change te numbers around. This isn't major redesigning.

3) River Trolls wield tree trunks as clubs. OK, that's nice, but why this weapon deals only 5 damage? I'm aware of that Trolls also fight using theirs claws as a weapon, but still 5 damage is not enough.

Can't you just increase the damage rating?

4) Stone Trolls' skin: "Weapons have been known to break upon striking the granite-hard surface of a stone troll's skin." And again, look at the stone troll's soak - only 3, it's less than the Plate armor. Somebody can tell that Trolls have high TO. That's right, but Players are also able to increase theirs TO to 6. So when a Dwarf has 6 To should I say that weapons can break upon his skin?

I think this is just poetic licence and isn't meant to simulate the rules.

Yes, I know, I'm complaining about nothing, becouse I can house rule everything. However, I would be very pleased if FFG wrote in ToA a sentence or two, about how monster's stats can change.

I think you raise some valid points. Points I need to research, personally.

Cheers

Of course, I can change every single rule, I can make lots of house rules, but...

I presented my opinion to you, and now you can do with it whatever you want.

Armoks said:

I save my NPCs defence cards for the players best attacks. You shouldn't just think of it as that being the only difficulty. If it's a hard opponent it may have two or more improved defence cards, a defence of two, so that's easily <BBB>+<PP> Each time that card comes up. On top of that comes <B> dice from being outnumbered. Just make sure your combat monsters/npcs have 3+ agility, toughness and strenght, so they can use those basic defence cards. Then use them against those attacks that are really dangerous.

Technically, an improvised weapon is DR 3, so a huge improvised weapon having DR 5 I see as just right. Clubs and swords deal serious wounds because of their small surface area. A tree trunk would be more able to deal impact but less able to deal pinpoint injury, so it evens out.

And that dwarf with Toughness 6 would be the toughest in the world, since 6 is the highest possible. So yes, songs would be sung about how his skin turns blades.

GravitysAngel said:

I can cut you with a sword or smash your face with a huge tree trunk, choose

Tree trunks are really big thus they don't scratch but crush.

GravitysAngel said:

As far as I know, he won't be toughnest because PCs don't greatly distinguish from the other people in the Old World. Just remember words of Jay Little from GenCon Seminar.

Armoks said:

All right mate, calm down, I'm just asking that's all

Sheesh.

Rat Catcher said:

I think Armoks has remained quite calm. He's backed up his original claim with hard data, and he's not interested in hearing about houserule solutions because as far as he's concerned that's a separate issue.