So we got to talking after our first run through of the system over the weekend. My play group has a varied gaming background, but we've all been minis and RP gamers for years and years. The lazy susan of conversation spun around to how players could minmax 3e using the new career system and the option limitations with 10 advances per career.

We weren't really sure it could be minmaxed, partially because we haven't seen anything overpowering in the game for Rank 1 or Rank 2 or the wider range of spells that is sure to come out at some point.

Anyone think on how to break the system as its currently written? Any character builds coming out that are THAT much better than what an average player would put together?

There was talk of the unstoppable Legolas build by using Rapid Shot and mixing in some Immobilising Shots to deal with adds. Specialize and train range weapons as far as you can, and add a fortune die to agility.

Also Double Strike seems to be a common one for powerful combos.

Basically anything that allows you to multiply your actions will a very powerful effect.

Personally, if I was restarting my campaign or starting a new one I would stop the trait 5 stuff. Trait 4 is pretty good. I'd rather they spent the first five sessions blowing their xp to get to that point. I only have one character that choose a rank 5 stat so I feel pretty lucky my characters weren't min/max players for the first go around.

I think too that the game needs to be played on the gritty side of combat. I think a character reaching rank 5 should be a character that's probably really really lucky, and the lethalness of the game should be played up and explained fully at the start of the campaign.

I'm not saying GMs need to be player killers but I am saying GMs should construct hard combat encounters and let the dice fall where they fall. Allow character death to happen, not pulling the punches, like say you would in a game of DnD.

Sinister said:

I wouldn't say they pull punches in D&D 4e, but rather "Cushion the Blow."

LeBlanc13 said:

When I run I fudge rolls that would do enough damage to kill,I don't attack down characters, and I've been known to say "I miss" on an important roll that would do something nasty. Three things I probably wouldn't do with this system. You are right though it probably is more of a cushion.

When I ran 4e, I didn't pull any punches and still had a VERY hard time giving my PC's a challenge. You could blame in on my DMing skills, but I was running the published adventures RAW at the time, so I didn't put too much extra work into it. If I'm going to rewrite scenes and bump up challenges, then why not just write my own adventures? Oh, that's right, I've got a family, job, and life..... I don't have time to.

LeBlanc13 said:

Le blanc, were you running encounters higher than the pcs? I found that 2 levels higher provides a challenge for my group, anything lesser, they mow throught it.

Sinister said:

... so you're saying that the game is only balanced two levels above where it's supposed to be? Glad I don't play D&D

He isn't saying that.

He's saying the Challenge Levels from WOTC are fair "easy", so to speak like videogames, and his players like "medium" or "hard". I GM Wotc's Star Wars d20 for many years and through 3 editions and I do the same.

What about your experience of WFRP3's challenge Level (number of skulls in the bestiary) ? Easy ? hard ?

I'm curious to know this as well...

How tough are the monsters at 1 skull, 2 skulls, etc...?

What's a challenge for rank 2 career, rank 3, etc...?

I don't find this information clearly defined in the game. It seems like it's all left up to trial and error. To me, that smacks of lack of good play testing data.

Or the release of a bestiary with deeper rules on how to design your own creatures/how to balance encounters. I expect more on this in the GM Toolkit as well.

Something funny that I took to heart from another game system. Savage Worlds does not list any sort of CR or level for its monsters/beasts. It actively states that some creatures are far more powerful than others and you can see it just from their statlines. It tells the GM to go ahead and throw whatever they want at the PCs with the understanding that sometimes its pure folly to stay and fight. Rather, go and get help from the local townsfolk, soldiers, etc, or run away. Basically, use your brains and you'll live longer. It gives the GM great leeway for creating adventures without stressing that the 'tier' the players are at always matches the monsters. I'm taking that to heart with WHFRP and designing what is fun, not worrying about automatic balance. It's also easier to do it this way when your reward system isn't tied to killing things like D&D always has been.

keltheos said:

What about running into creatures way above your capabilities that are faster than your party?

TPK.... End of story. Not fun

LeBlanc13 said:

The slowest PC gets eaten and rolls up a new character.

Some creatures are hungry and only seek to disable their opponents. You assume one party member is enough to fill and satisfy the gullet of the creature chasing the party.

It's a funny cliche, but it doesn't work in all situations. I've seen in movies where creatures can swallow humans whole. The rest of the party just delays the inevitable... or just dies tired.

willmanx said:

Yes. This is what I'm saying. Good players have no trouble with challenge encounters of their level. It would probably be a good challenge to a group of new players that didn't min/max.

That's where the GM 'fudge factor' can come into play. (no, not factory).

If the PCs wander into something they shouldn't have through no fault of their own you can always give them a chance through some machination.

Since I've always tended to run WFRP (1E and 2E) like Call of Cthulhu, it was always expected that the PCs would run into something that was well beyond their capability to defeat by combat. This always required a tactical retreat (and sometimes a character death if they weren't careful) so that they could assess how exactly to get past such an obstacle.

I think in this aspect the game is just going through its own growing pains as people play more. WFRP has never had an accurate guide on what a party could face anyway, it was always really left up to the GM to eyeball it. I know from the other thread that some consider that bad game design, and I can understand beliving that, but in a system that could have a party with a Troll Slayer and a Commoner in the same group, you have to accept that as something you "learn as you go".

Just my opinion...

When I write my scenarios or convert old v1/v2 scenarios I put all NPCs into my NPC sheet complete with stats, action cards and special rules. A troll is no more just a troll than a troll slayer is just a troll slayer. A troll slayer can have 0 experience points or 100 experience points. I use the same general idea for NPCs, because they too can have more or less experience and be more or less challenging. I design all my NPCs myself with the ToA as a guideline.

Or the slowest PC gets eaten. It is a Grim and Dark setting. Character mortality should be on the players' minds every time they explore the Great Mysteries of the Old World...or they escape but are driven temporarily insane by the encounter, or if there's a NPC with them winds up being their 'soak' value for the encounter. "Run, I'll hold it back!"

It's in how you tell the tale vs. how you roll the dice in these instances.

LeBlanc13 said:

The only time I could justify pulling off a TPK using carvivorous creatures was in the v2 adventure Barony of the Damned when the PCs were surrounded by hundreds of Ghouls, challenged the Cannibal Knight to a duel, and then cheated...

Otherwise, I've always been able to justifiably give the PCs a chance to avoid TPKs involving carnivorous monsters. Of course, it's easier with Fate Points.

keltheos said:

mmmm....fudge factory. I'm hungry