Gallows said:

Yeah, I'm sorry. That wasn't fair. I based that on my memory of something else you posted. But I just went back to have a look and I had misremebered. So, yeah, my apologies.

@ Gallows:

I don't understand what you mean about wizards not having the 'wepoan damage added to their base stat. Most of the spells do damage like X+Int where X is often between 3 and 6. thats about the same amount ordinary weapons do albeit only every second turn unless you quick cast. But as you just mentioned yourself you would deem it balanced if wizards added 'weapon damage'.

Please clarify what you mean.

(i am assuming i understood Gallows line of argument, if I am wrong please correct me *g* )

What Gallows means, a Spell is like an Attack Action ... with certain number of successes you deal damage base on Stat + modifier.

With weapons the modifier is the mod on the card plus around 5 from the weapon used.

With spells its only the mod from the card, therefore spells deal a bit less damage when compared to weapon attacks.

What should be considered is, that the damage mod from spells is a bit higher on average than normal attacks, especially ranged attacks. And spells have the advantage of needing no ammunition, which has encumbrance and costs money (in your run of the mill rpg this can be ignored, but in WFRP arrows and the like weighs a considerable amount).

Lucas Adorn said:

Lucas Adorn said:

A simple comparison between the cards and damage potential give melee fighters and archers an average damage advantage that roughly resembled the damage on weapons. I know some magic cards have extra damage, but a lot of melee cards have extra damage as well (like reckless cleave where strenght can be added twice on just one boon).

So what I mean is that the difference in damage between a wizard and a fighter is about the same as the damage on the average hand weapon.

But it's true that magic has other advantages like no ammo (although channeling sometimes needs it's own action because quick casting will just reduce damage, make backlash worse and make failure more likely). But magic has the advantage that many spells can't be defended against unless you have counterspell...

Can we please stop having this ridiculous "career X isn't balanced with career Y" argument?

As I've pointed out before - CAREERS AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE BALANCED. Warriors are better at combat. Rag Pickers are better at, I dunno, picking up rags. Bright Wizards exist to cast spells.

I'm well aware that you think combat is the only thing worth measuring, but most of us actually play the game such that not everything is about killing stuff.

Please stop complaining about balance. The rules, as written, are not balanced. They aren't supposed to be.

Grashnak said:

That's fine, but the Bright Wizard is -supposed- to be combat focussed - the Grey Wizard, not so much. If their damage potential sucks, it breaks immersion - why does the Empire employ bright wizards in its armies when they could just have another soldier? Or another cannon?

Hopefully this will be fixed down the line, and it makes sense that starting wizards would be a bit weak compared to military types - magic is supposed to be difficult to use. But the reason people care about balance is because if one class is a LOT better than another, players of the first class feel cheated and excluded

phobiandarkmoon said:

Precisely. I am not complaining about general wizard damage output. I am specifically talking about the damage of the combat oriented bright wizard fighting in the armies of the empire. But we're going to try two things the next two gaming sessions and see how it balance out. First quick casting will only add a misfortune die. Second a bright wizard can add +1 damage for every extra power point he puts into the spell.

Grashnak said:

Warrior careers are supposed to be good at combat. Sneaky careers are supposed to be good at doing sneaky things. Social careers are supposed to be good at social encounters. Academic careers are supposed to be good at doing clever stuff.

The fact that Grey wizards aren't great damage dealers is not a problem - they are supposed to be sneaky. A Celestial wizard is supposed to be good at doing clever stuff. All both of these do these things well imo.

However, Bright wizards are damage dealers in the fluff - they are supposed to be good at combat. In fact virtually their whole spell list are damage dealers - and not a one compares well to 'Rapid Shot' or 'Double Strike'. It's this dissonance that draws the comments imo.

The Bright wizards in the Empire army are not Apprentices, so trying to use fluff as justification for increasing WFRP spellcaster damage is just plain wrong. The WFRP careers are not D&D4e classes. They are not balanced for combat. They do not ensure that each character can contribute equally to a combat regardless of career. A melee fighter with Double Strike or an Archer with Rapid Fire does more damage than a Bright wizard casting a spell. So what? As many have pointed out, there's far more to this system than damage potential.

In general, I feel that people need to stop comparing two individual action cards and making accusations that because one is better than the other (in some way) that the game is broken. Another character may have better Skills, Talents, Characteristics, Fortune dice on Characteristics, etc. that offset the fact that he was not able to get the bestest action card for dealing damage. So some cards are better than others. So what? Having certain actions is what helps make a character unique. If everyone can do it, it's not anything special. In a "I need to minmax my character build" mentality, their are some obvious optimal choices. From an RP standpoint, I'm okay with the fact that we have a lot of variety and that not every character has the "best" melee or "best" ranged attack action. Of what use is your best melee attack action card in a session that has no combat? I've played and run many WFRP sessions that didn't have a single combat. That's one of the reasons I play it actually.

Gallows said:

So this is all about 3 points of damage on average, for a ranged attack vs a melee?

Sigh. If it were the other way around, people would be complaining that Troll Slayers were underpowered.

Doc, the Weasel said:

After soak those three points of damage is sometimes a large percentage of the total damage. But that doesn't take quick casting into account. Either the wizard does only half that or he quick casts which will reduce average damage and success rate.

And while there is a lot more to WFRP than combat and damage... this thread IS specifically about that part of the game.

Remember that wizards get to do damage without any equipment. Nothing to lose/break, etc. It is also, generally, a ranged attack. Without quickcasting, many spells are easier to cast than ranged/melee attack action. Then, wizards get bonus spells that aren't combat oriented, which increases their versatility.

No, wizards are just fine as they are. Even Bright Wizards are not supposed to outclass warriors in their chosen field.

The Wizard in my group complains similiarly.

The two big damage dealers in my party are the Wizard and a Elf Hunter. I am assuming since both do ranged type damage for the most part, the Bright Wizad is feeling outclassed.

Not really having enough data in this system, I can't really estimate damage potential for higher levels.

My counter has been that the Bright Wizard itself has a lot more flexibility than the Hunter. Both suck when they get engaged in melee.

Gallows said:

House rule proposition: add the attuned item value to damage.

jfmongrain said:

Yep that's part of what we'll try for the next two sessions, but we'll split it between that and then using more power with spells. The +1 damage/2 power is changed to +1 damage for each power used.

One can argue that there are reasons that the wizard damage potential is weak, but my argument simply is that the wizard damage potential is weak and not if it's justified by other factors.

For me it is not about damage stats as to why the Bright Wizard feels underpowered, its about the feel of the college that is missed. A Bright Wizard should feel like he is harnessing destructive power that has the potential to go very wrong if not careful, he should feel under pressure from his own power to unleash it least he harm himself, but by unleashing it he could cause unintended consequences (like setting a room on fire or damaging his friends or somesuch).

I am willing to accept the point that the magic suppliment is not yet released, but still, the ground work laid in the core set does not look promising - there is simply no real 'faustian pact' to the magic...

Forgive me as I don't have the cards. But do the melee cards mention also have the capability to ignore soak value? I know a lot of the spell cards do. If the melee cards don't have that option.

nub5 said:

Some cards do have that effect when rolling a comet and when it happends the damage is very close to melee damage against monsters with 4 soak. Of course against monsters with a higher soak it's really nice.

We're talking about starting Bright Wizards right? Novices, not battle-ready combat mages like you'd see in WHFB, correct? Like the equivalent of the Magic Missile caster in D&D?

Wizards aren't under powered they are just different. The whole argument is almost as ridiculous as the monsters vs pc one. Wizards don't have to be up close and personal, they can do area effect damage and they have versatility. Not to mention other benefits like scaring the crap out of peasants - which is it's own risk/reward.

If you want to complain about fair why compare the wizard to the troll slayer why not at least compare apples. Go wizard vs archer or mercenary vs troll slayer or two different troll slayer builds. Why does everything have to perfectly the same - and I should note we are only talking with relation to combat and even then apparently only DPS ability which is lame to begin with.

There is so much more to any RPG then DPS. If you can't see the potential there then you really need to think outside of your very narrow box.

In fact, damage potential is really high: nothing prevents you, I think, to channel an awfull lot of power (just spend manoeuvre/stress each roud not to vent - that would be bad) to deliver a hell of a blast - low DPS, maybe, but the potential to render a really high soak value totaly useless in a few rounds.

In that case, the one or two wound/round that the slayer is doing is less than what you can achieve in a few round of channelling - because once you get over the soak threshold, every point would count - but the high soak threshold ennemy will be able to soak every hit of the slayer.

jfmongrain said:

A gave the numbers for this on page 2 (iirc). Basically it has a high failure risk and at best equals 'Double Strike'.

If a Wizards DPS was not a lot lower the game WOULD be broken. These monster dwarf fighters that are always dragged out have physical stats that are all 4s and 5s, but mental/social skills thats are all 2s.

So lets say you spend 1/3 of your time RPing (not a lot of rolling), and 1/3 on social challenges or tasks thats require something other than skull-splitting, and 1/3 on combat... how retarded would it be if the Mage kicked the dwarf's butt at all the non-combat stuff having lots of 4s and 5s in those stats and mental skills... and then when a fight broke out was just as good or better than the dwarf? A one dimensional character outta shine in his chosen dimension... becuase by definition he sucks at everything else.

If you are running a game where you spend all of your time in combat, then everyone should be playing 100% combat oriented characters - pit fighters, troll slayers, soldiers, mercenaries, etc. A poor unarmed Scholar has no place in that game! If you play a balanced game then a mix of characters will all be rewarded. If a character is all about combat he will take a backseat in all non-combat roles, but shine there. Others could be really weak in combat like an academic but strong outside of it. And of course there is always that stunning rarity... the balanced character.

If you want to make a house rule that all Bright Wizard spells do +1,000,000 damage and can't be soaked... go for it. You don't need anyone's permission... thats why its a house rule.

Yep house ruling is possible, but just wanted some input before I jumped to conclusions. I want to house rule as little as possible and for that reason it's nice to get some other opinions on the matter before we decide on what to do as house rules.

Personally I see the bright wizard as a combat oriented character and he will have low physical stats just like the iron troll slayer will have low mental stats. That gives him issues with soak, healing, initiative etc. There are social stuff tied to the physical skills as well though - like intimidation.

keltheos said:

Yeah, what we see in WFB (or Warhammer Online) are starting at a point of proficiency well past what WFRP characters would be likely to see by the end of their career. If one assumes the first few wizard careers are on par with things like Ironbreakers, Swordmasters (and their associated champions) you wouldn't expect to see WFB-like wizards until much later Tiers (at very best). If you use WFB points as a *very* rough measure, a barebones, starting College Wizard would be roughly equal 5-10 of the equivalent of most WFRP careers, at least.

Of course, that's forcibly shoving together two very different systems with very different focuses and intent. So it doesn't really tell us a whole lot.

I do know that the Bright Wizard in my group has the rest of the party in awe with his desctructive potential, as well as his ability to perceive the Aethyr (which has been *huge* in our games).