We have two players in our group that I will compare.

1. A dwarf soldier with 4 strenght, using a hand axe

2. A human wizard with 4 intelligence and 4 willpower

The damage potential for the dwarfs troll feller strike is: 4+5+3+4 = 16 damage

The damage potential of the wizard ´using flame blast is: 4+6+1+1+1 = 13 damage

The wizard has a lower damage and on top of that he needs to channel, meaning that unless he takes an extra challenge die he can only do 13 damage every second turn. He can also spend more power, but that is really not worth it because to get 3 extra damage he could just as well canst a new spell for the 6 power it costs.

What's your experience with the wizard and his damage output?

I am thinking about fixing it by making channeling an maneuvre instead of an action, but still the damage output will remain much lower while at the same time having a lower survivability.

How about adding his Rank?

My experience is that you definitely don't need to fix this. It's fine. Our bright wizard, a notorious wizard-whiner in every system, does not whine any more about his low power. It might take until 2nd rank to kick in, but you really don't need to increase the wizard's damage potential.

In any case, Channeling is effectively a manoeuvre when you quick cast.

monkeylite said:

But that adds another challenge die to the dice pool. But how can you say that it's balanced? The dwarf in our group has improved block and parry, plus riposte and counterblow. The dwarf easily does three times as much damage as the wizard in an encounter.

Gallows said:

Do what you like. You asked for my experience and I gave it. I really can't be arsed to argue about it.

I have learned from others RPGs that wizard usually needs to wait until higher ranks to became powerful, so maybe we need to wait until a new expansion for wizards will be released.

Azyr wizard of my player deals only 10 damage on a good roll, while a Troll Slayer is able to deal up to 20 damage. So his wizard is rather poor damage dealer.

Cheers

Gallows said:

The Troll Feller Strike can be done every turn?

A wizard is not all about damage. even bright wizards. they have a greater diversity of skills and powers than troll slayers.

No 1st level wizard in any system deals as much damage as fighters. even later lvl's they are limited by the number of spells they can cast whereas fighters just keep going. In this system wizards have unlimited spells too. as long as they don't miscast

Lucas Adorn said:

I am talking about a bright wizard with every single bright wizard spell. Troll feller strike isn't the only one, he also has reckless cleave... and other great attacks, plus riposte and counter blow. They have the exact same number of exp and the soldier does about three times as much damage as the wizard who has done everything he can to improve his damage dealing ability.

The main reason is that warriors have a weapon with a damage rating that they add to their attack. Wizards do not... and that's where the difference in damage is for individual cards.

Gallows said:

Our Bright Wiz did something like 51 damage with his Fires of U'Zhul the other day.

with one attack?

Yeah. iirc

6+ 4 (Int) +1(boon) on the target &

2+4+1 on 6 of his allies.

As has been pointed out, wizards have a variety of additional spells they can use. Combat, even for bright wizards, is not what they are all about. If they want combat potential, they can take a good strength and wield a sword and use Double Strike or Troll Feller Strike just like the melee folks.

dvang said:

Lol

@monkeylite: ah, I thought it was at one target. But that also shows some of their abilities. Fighters can't really do that kind of damage. Area I mean.

You've also overlooked that basic bit about the wizard's output vs the Dwarf's. The Dwarf has to be engaged with his opponent to use his snazzy attack Actions. The wizard can plink at a distance. Which, then, will be 'an archer has more damage output' to which the reply is: he needs a bow and arrows to use his attacks. Wizards don't. Also, bows and arrows and greataxes can't make things invisible, buff allies with shields and whatnot, subtly influence NPCs through magic, and so forth. An archer and Troll Slayer are also not able ot read the winds of magic like a wizard.

Straight up damage output out of the gate? Maybe, but that's like saying the same thing about a thief armed with a dagger vs. the same Troll Slayer.

Gallows said:

The Troll Slayer is probably the deadliest career we have, in terms of damage dealing in combat. They're also inadequate in social situations and can't wait to die violently. They're usually limited to melee attacks, rather than ranged attacks. So there are some balancing factors right there.

Why are you expecting Wizards or Thieves or Envoys to be balanced with Troll Slayers in the one area that Troll Slayers usually perform better than anyone else?

DagobahDave said:

Personally I think that's not true. The deadliest character is this one who will pick up the strongest action cards. Imagine a full plate warrior with the same set of action cards like the Slayer. Uh... terrifying.

Besides the troll slayer has to be tough to survive long enough to be any fun to play.

It appears that a lot of people seem to comparing things based solely on combat, and even specifically on damage output. All these threads popping up about x is better than y etc seem out of place in WHFRP (well my idea of the Warhammer Roleplay world anyway)

It appears strange to me, but that maybe because i always GM and don’t plan my adventures to contain opponents for my players based solely on damage output.

I do it based on what they add to the game experience and our enjoyment of it. I get my power gaming fix from board games and pc games where the aim is to be competitive and win.

monkeylite said:

That 53 is not wounds caused though. I see soaks of 6 as fairly common. So assuming a soak of 6, this is 5 wounds on the primary and 1 wound on 6 allies = 11 wounds (widely spread).

The guy doing 20 raw damage is doing 14 wounds. So your experienced bright wizard is still tickling targets while the fighters are dropping them. So your confidence that wizards become good damage dealers later on isn't supported by your example.

A bright wizard can achieve high damage but he needs to spend a round preparing and be lucky. For example:

Int 5, Will 5 Bright Wizard.

Turn 1: Channel 4 power to bring total to 9. If you can channel 7 power cast Magic Dart too. End turn on 9 power.

Turn 2: Channel 7 power to get 16 power total. Cast Flamestrike and add 10 power to give +5 damage. Maximum raw damage potential 20.

So thats 3 rolls and 4 challenge dice. This tactic has a fair chance of failure.

I swear this is all ground we have covered A LOT in the last few weeks, with the same folks saying the same things. Clearly there are those that feel that the careers, and particularly magic users, should be balanced for combat, particularly the RPG equivalent of DPS or damage dealt.

Several of us argue from a systems-wide perspective that:

1. We have no idea what later spells will be like in terms of a power ramp; so they may start low and end up very very high in comparison. This may be the intended trajectory for spell casters. To suggest their damage potential is VERY weak in the first levels of play isn't the strongest argument.
2. There's more to this RPG and the careers than equity in dealing damage. Things like social encounters, ability to fix broken limbs, etc. all factor in the usefulness of a career. Spellcasters in particular can have a LOT of impact on storyline on the basis of their reputations alone, much less invoking cantrips and the like.
3. Range can be a factor; the troll slayer (or equivs) are hand to hand fighting. The mage isn't bloody likely to be in their opponent's face.

By all means, every GM should run their game and their group according to their likes, so make casting easier, make their damage higher, etc. You run the risk of having to ramp it back the other way if they go with substantially higher power in the later spell ranks, but as long as you acknowledge that, fine.

It seems to me that an awful lot of groups are very combat focused, and that's their first area of concern. I have yet to hear from anyone in my group that the wizard's aren't getting enough love because their damage output is lower than the dwarf merc in the party.

HedgeWizard said:

Totally agree, the narrow definition of damage potential that seems to being applied to balance is just not looking at the whole picture. There seems to be a lot of theorizing going on about potential problems and not a lot of actual playing going on. I just have not found any of the issues raised so far as an actual problem when playing the game.

Armoks said:

Exactly... he's not a troll slayer, but going to iron breaker next session.

Besides that example by monkeylite does anything but show damage potential of the wizard when you consider soak of all seven enemies.

Arguing that a wizard just have to use melee attacks to have a fair damage potential is silly, considering his soak.

I agree that a wizard can be versatile, but looking at a bright wizard isn't so great. He is focused very much on damage spells that are weaker than a good warriors basic melee attack simply because the soldier has a weapon that adds a lot of automatic damage to the attack.

Perhaps spells will come that have ,much more power, but that's irrelevant. I am looking at the system we have now and how it's balanced between two players with the same experience. I personally believe that the bright wizard should do more damage, because as soon as a monster or npc attacks him he's in trouble. He can't defend himself very well and there is no way he can kill the enemies before they kill him - even if it's a fairly weak single enemy.

The very basic fact that the cards themselves seem balanced but warriors and archers have the added damage of weapons and wizards do not is the problem. If wizards had artifacts with the same damage as weapons there would be a more sensible damage. It's like the weapon part of the damage output was forgotten.

My own fix has been to give the player a staff made in SE that gives him +2 damage to all damage spells and changing the bright wizard bonus to give +1 damage for each power spent, since the +1 for each power spent makes it useless, because when you look at damage over time it's always better to just cast a new spell instead,. I want to see how that balances out next session, but because the wizard is so fragile I want him to be able to kill enemies faster than the dwarf in heavy armor, so there is a reason for him to get involved at all.

If it was this kind of bright wizards that fought for the emperor against chaos then the empire would be no more.

Gallows said:

No, look. You said "I am talking about a bright wizard with every single bright wizard spell." I was just showing you that there was a spell which could do more damage. To say it could have been soaked heavily, seems to be deliberately and disingenuously missing the possibility that it might not be soaked much at all.

But, I've tried to discuss stuff with you before, and it seems to me you're only interested in proving how great all your houserules are, and in not much else, so I'll bow out of this one, too.

monkeylite said:

I haven't mentioned my house rules in here and if I did and can't remember I certainly didn't do it to pimp them. If you bothered read my house rule thread you'd know that your assumptions about my view on my own house rules is very much full of it, because I like people pointing out issues with them, because sometimes your own "great" ideas just seem great because there are things that you haven't thought through or even thought about. I'll refrain from commenting on your posting habbits and personal issues since I deem it irrelevant to this discussion and since I doubt I know anything about your real motivation anyway.

With that said... back on topic.

You are right that against monsters with low soak that spell would be wonderful. But against the same monsters the dwarf in our group would kill them quickly anyway. Double attack and rapid fire are both better though.

But try looking at the cards. IF weapons had no damage then the damage of wizards and fighters/archers would be fairly balanced. At the same time IF wizards used weapons to add damage along the same lines it would also be balanced, if they quick cast that is.

It just seems to me that in the overall balance weapon damage wasn't taken into account when they balanced magic.

I am fine with your opinion and it doesn't hurt my feelings. It's nice to see things from another perspective, because you're only right as long as someone else haven't rightly pointed out that you're not. I only write here to hear other people opinions... not to read my own words.