I've reviewed many of the proposed methods, most I've tried, and most end up either being too hard, too complex, or too soft.

After taking a long look at the system, I find the problem may rest in the dice. The fact is we have several different ways to increase our success rate in the system (a reckless die, a conservative die, an expertise die, and a fortune die) while we only have two dice to represent challenge (misfortune die, and a challenge die). What I think may solve the problem would be the inclusion of a third difficulty die, for now lets call it a proficiency die which are added to a pool when a character is acting against someone with levels of skills (creatures would be able to spend some of their pools to get access to these dice as well).

Basically the rough idea would be one Proficiency die would be added to the pool for each rank of expertise the character has in a skill. So a character with two skill, would add two proficiency dice to the check of an opponent when they roll to hit them...the difficulty pool ending up as (1 purple, 2 Expertise + any other additional dice from an action card). If the die is properly designed, it would be like an super misfortune die, but not quite as brutal as a challenge die, almost like a mid-step. So far this was my basic layout for it. For now, the die would be a D6 (probably orange as to keep it being confused with the other dice) and the sides would look like this:

2 Fail sides

1 Fail & 1 Bane side.

1 Bane side.

I am not sure if it would need a fifth side, but based on these numbers, the die would have roughly a 50% fail rate, a 33% Bane rate with the including the powerful fail and a bane result (much like the hammer boon effect on the stance die).

I don't know, for sure if the other two sides should be blank, but I could see maybe one being a Chaos star or another fail and bane side or a fail and a chaos star, I'm just not sure as of yet.

So my question to you guys is what do you think of the idea? What do you think of the die sides and any suggestions on how to make it better? I was debating about putting it on a d10 instead and I am strongly considering it, any thoughts? How else could you see the die being used? One other way that quickly jumped out, is when you try to sneak past someone or spot someone sneaking, this special die would be placed on them based on skill ranks as well. It would also work well for magic resistance and counter magic.

Anyway, give me your thoughts.

Grrrr, **** You Commoner, because of You instead of getting some sleep I sit and count probabilities (I have that thing in my head, that doesn't allow me to focus on anything until I at least partially deal with the problem, it's irritating like hell, especially when I can't find a satisfying solution).

I would forfit adding another dice type, and instead change the existing ones.

To this for example:

characteristic - d10
4 x success
4 x boon
2 x blank

conservative - d10
2 x success delay
3 x success
1 x double boon
2 x boon
2 x blank

reckless - d10
2 x dobule success
2 x success exertion
3 x double boon
1 x bane
1 x challenge
1 x blank

expertise - d8
1 x righteous success
1 x sigmar's comet
1 x success
2 x boon
3 x blank

and would leave rest of the dice like they are now

fortune - d6
2 x success
1 x boon
3 x blank

misfortune - d6
2 x challenge
1 x bane
3 x blank

challenge - d8
2 x double challenge
2 x challenge
1 x double bane
1 x bane
1 x chaos star
1 x blank

Chances look better with the above.

Example: 2 challenge, 2 characteristic, 2 conservative, 2 expertise, 2 fortune and 2 misfortune

currently such a dice pool have a: 78% chance to succeed, 61% for 2 or more success, 42% of 3 or more success, 68 % on boon, 45% on 2 or more boons, 23% on 3 or more boons, 14% chance on bane, 5% on 2 or more banes, and 1% on 3 or more banes

with the above results change to: 63% chance to succeed, 43% chance for 2 or more success, 25% for 3 or more success, 69% on boon, 48% on 2 or more boons, 27% on 3 or more boons, 14% chance on bane, 5% on 2 or more banes, and 1% on 3 or more banes

But this require more testing, and I need to get some sleep (not to mention that whatever we say FFG will not change, or add new dice, seems like they planned from the beginning this new edition to be much, much more heroic type than previously... maybe Q-workshop and individual order... or we can sit and wait for the new edition ).

They could easily add new dice, but if anything is needed it's a new challenge die and a worse misfortune die. Adding worse dice for characteristics, stances and skills wouldn't work very well unless they completely replaced the current dice.

But a new challenge die and misfortune die, could work very well. Of course new dice with a different mix of boons/successes could also work, so you should mix your pool when trying to get the best possible result. But anything improving the success rate would be bad if you ask me.

If you really want to know what effects different dice could have, and have time, and some basic progamming knowledge, then go to Jaj22 dice probability page ( www.jaj22.org.uk/wfrp/diceprob.html ) and save it to your disk.

Then find the "diceprob_compound_both.js" file in the folder you saved the page, open it with text editor, change the dice (each of them is a function that adds or removes various symbols), and save.

Run the "diceprob.html" from your drive, and then you can switch between original jaj22 page, and your modified one to see how the probabilities change.

Repeat until you find the results, face number and symbols on evey dice that seems to be right.

Gallows said:

I agree here, I think...still trying to discern exactly what you mean...could be the five hour exam I took today. Anyway, I am not sure about redoing the challenge die or the misfortune die. The Challenge die is brutal at low levels, if set properly. Two purple against three characteristic and one yellow does have a pretty decent outcome of failure (it happens a lot in my sessions) I'd probably give it a 50/50. I also like how the misfortune die accounts for minor inconveniences (such as rain or slippery mud) and it is great that it reflects perfectly the fortune die, just in reverse. I have found assigning multiple misfortune die for certain situations is necessary. As I said in the original post, but bears worth repeating, the challenge die is brutal...the misfortune is soft and there is nothing that's a pain (like on a scale of 1-5 the misfotune is a one, challenge is a five, this die would roughly be a 3). Something to gauge the middle. If both the challenge die and misfortune die were redesigned to be harsher, I have a feeling the fail rate would be too harsh on low ranking characters and stall out high level characters. The main dice have a nice spread of skill and expertise level, but the difficulty dice do not. They need a midground and if you look at them and imagined they had one, then I think you'd find there is no need to change any of the dice that already exist. If you look at my original spread, it seemed to be fitting roughly that it gives a 50% fail rate on each of the die type, but without the heavy burden of double fails and double banes the challenge die carries with it. It would be a mid-ground die.

I also agree it shouldn't only reflect skill, I was wondering where else it could reflect? I imagine this type of die would become the default "defense" die for a character? It would work well in opposed and competative checks, replacing the misfortune die for skill and expertise. It could easily be used in place of two misfortune die. I could easily sight skill rank (such as gaurd's trying to spot an assassin - their observation skill rank give this die as a penalty against the sneaking assassin), but what other type of language could used to be describe it rather than a redundant challenge die or misfortune die?

I do think redoing all the dice would be a monumental feat and would mean we would all have to get yet another set of dice. Besides, the design principle is high success to mitigate and create various effects off action cards. I heavily doubt that FFG will change their mind about that fundamental design principle anytime soon.

So this is a die we could have custom made to help us play the game we want without drastic alterations or confusing side rules in the system.

Ok, I was a bit too fast with my forst post, I admit.

I agree with You Commoner, another die to counter the expertise die is an interesting idea.

But adding such a die would be as problematic as redoing all the dice:

- It would require some changes in the mechanics (in this situation add "new die" instead of misfortune)

- CARDS, there are misfortune symbols on almost every card, and some of them would have to be replaced, and possibly rebalanced

- they would have to sell it individually, or find another way to distribute it

Such discussion should have taken place before the dice were made, and mechanic cemented.

So I agree with Commoner, that it is a good idea, but I'm afraid it is too late, and FFG will never even consider it.

Q-workshop and houserule is my call in this case.

But!

One thing I can do, is to add such die to dice roller, if only to see, how it behaves

What color should it have again?

Should I add the face symbols as You posted in Your first post Commoner, or make it opposite to Expertise die (without rerolling I suppose):

- 1 x chaos star

- 2 x challenge

- 2 x bane

- 1 x blank

Putting it in the die roller would be a good idea. Mostly, I posted up the idea not so much for FFG, but for the world of house rules. Like I said above, Defense, compatative or opposed rolls, these would add challenge mostly in character versus character, but I see that a lot more than I'm climbing a wall. Heck you could even rule the guy who set the trap on the door was an expert trapper so add x amount of these new dice to the pool.

I would say the die would be orange (as it is a strong color that stands out from the rest). I also originally thought it should be exactly opposite the expertise die, but in review think that's not so clean. My original chart is mostly done:

2 challenges,

1 challenge and bane

1 bane.

I haven't gotten past that yet. The obvious choices are double bane, 2 challenge and bane, or a chaos star. The extra star might be problematic on larger rolls. Double banes are harsh and eliminate the boons which are few to begin with. The star most of the time counts as a bane, but again this might make banes too frequent. If the difficulty gets much higher on these dice it might be too far, but I could see maybe another challenge or another bane and challenge, leaving 1 side blank. I just haven't figured out which way to go. If you can, maybe try the die roller with different combos or post up some ideas and we'll hack them together (I'd say other people as well, but most of the fish aren't biting it seems). Man, sometimes, these boards feel dead!

clarification, right now, this would be a d6. The only other type I would consider is a d10.

Ok.

Work in progress for... Nemezis die .

I try to make it editable, so we could check how it behaves without the need to change the code.

But it will take some time, expect it in a day, or two.

Made some counting.

Seems like d10 will be better than d6.

d6 You proposed Commoner seems too powerfull.

d10 with faces like this:

1 x challenge challenge

3 x challenge

2 x bane

1 x chaos star

3 x blank

should fit nicely right in the middle of challenge and misfortune dice.

Just not sure about the chaos star.

I will upload new version of dice roller with the above 10 faces shortly (not editable at the moment, and not sure if it will, lots of work with that).

Small problems on the line.

Server down, should be up in a while.

d10 with faces like this:

1 x challenge challenge

3 x challenge

2 x bane

1 x chaos star

3 x blank

That's not a bad run. Instead of the Chaos Star (which, most of the time is a bane) switch it up to a challenge and a bane. That way you roughly have a 50% fail rate and a 30% bane rate. It would also be a great counter to the hammer boon on a stance die, neutralizing the entire result on a single roll. The other reason, as it stands we have an overall 40% fail rate on this die, which is close to the misfortune fail rate of 33%. I feel a 50% fail rate is more accurate given the high success rate of the expertise die and the stance dice. This die needs to be able to help support the middle margin, between a challenge die and a misfortune die. I don't care to run the curves, but you referenced the probabilities before with the actual curves:

Challenge Die: 50% fail rate, 25% double fail, 25% Bane, 12.5% Double Bane, 12.5% Chaos Star.

Misfortune: 33% fail rate, 16.6% Bane

Nemesis Die (above): 40% fail rate, 10% double fail, 20% Bane, 10% star.

Nemesis Die (redub): 50% fail rate, 10% double fail, 30% Bane, no double bane, no star.

It seems to gradually become a weaker version of the Challenge die, but not by a ton, and mostly in terms of the particularly harsh results such as double bane, double fails, and chaos stars.

But I totally look forward to the dice roller.

commoner said:

I wanted this die to replace misfortune in following situations (not neccessarily counter expertise):

- defence (add a nemezis die for each defence point instead of misfortune)

- skill trained (add nemezis die, if opponent is trained in corresponding skill)

- misfortune die in any other case (so random factors, cards in play, specialisations etc.)

For this purpose the values I proposed were not bad, and I still feel, that 50% fail rate is just too much (I wanted something in between challenge and misfortune).

Anyway, dice editor is ready

Feel free to design your own dice set (yup, every refresh will get them back to default, but you can still save it to your hard drive and change the files manually).

But the high success rate is easy to fix without breaking anything, simply by modifying the challenge die. It's also the most scalable solution and the one changing the least with the system in general. By changing the challenge die you can tailor your success rate completely and find that sweet spot.

With that in mind I doubt they will add new dice. It would be much easier making new actions (mostly defensive actions), that alter how symbols on the challenge die is read.

Just imagine a superiour parry card. It adds one challenge die to the dice pool, but then it also modifies the attackers action to gain the following:

<CS> The attacker must remove two successes and reroll another challenge die

<ba><ba> The attacker must remove one success and reroll another challenge die

Just examples, but it's easy to make cards that alter the rules of the dice and I believe that's a much more viable route than actually adding new dice.

Sorry to be that guy but what precisely is the 'combat problem'? (Or rather what is the problem with combat?)

Some folks feel that the success rate for combat resolution (I believe for the PCs specifically) is skewed in favor of successes versus failures from the start of a character. Like instead of it being 45% or somesuch rate of success for a starting character it's more around 65% or more.

Either that or simply that combat has little to do with the opponent's stats (you add one challenge die, unless some sort of active defense is put into play) and just the single die and any action modifier dice.

Or, maybe that's the two combat problems folks seem to have. I haven't encountered it yet myself, but we're not looking as deeply as some are.

I totally support houserules to balance a game, though I am always leery of overextending them (i.e. that reach too deep, or cut across too many other systems). I think this particular thread is interesting, however I would like to offer the following view of the improved success rate:

Time to resolution. By improving the odds (and not JUST the impacts) combat escapes the round-by-round miss-fest of yore. Granted you *could* run an encounter on one die roll entirely. Conversely, if you stay with a low percentage chance of hitting (or likewise a signficantly reduced damage model) the combats take longer and become less interesting to many players and GMs:

• GM: Okay roll!
• Player: I miss. Again.
• GM: The Orc dives in under your blow while chopping at your legs. *rolls* He misses.

IMO, the ideal balance is one where players are invested: interesting things (attacks, maneuvers, etc.) are happening nearly every die roll, yet the damage model is sufficient to threaten the players.

I personally have found the improved chances a wonderful way to get to meaty combats that don't take forever to resolve, while retaining some threat to the PCs. Granted, obviously others want to reduce the %s down, and that's fine. But do keep in mind it will result in longer combat resolutions. You can make up for it to some degree with changes to the damage model too, but then you start going down a rabbit hole of exploring cause and effect balancing.

Is it better to miss more often, but that ONE hit is the game changer?

You know the PCs are going to hit eventually - why not focus the action on the times they actually DO hit?

Just some thoughts to think about.

I agree with your logic Hedgewizard. I have personally made house rules to make the success rate a bit smaller. Our rule for this is:

• Reading the challenge die: Chaos stars count as a chaos star, two challenges and a reroll of a new challenge die.

This lowers the success rate a bit without making the success rate too low.

For starting fighter characters the success rate goes from 83% to 73% against an opponent with a defence of 1

For rank 3 characters (3 weapon skill) the success rate goes from 95% to 85% against an opponent with a defence of 2

Our rule shaves of about 10% which brings the success rate in line with what we feel plays the best. It also means reactive defences are a a bit better. Overall we're very happy with this simple rule.

Gallows said:

Sorry to ask Gallows.

Can You tell me, how much dice of each type You rolled, and how did You count those numbers?

I'm using a bit changed Jaj22 dice probability generator (original can be found here ), and if I am right (didn't make any bugs in the tool, when I added rerolling on chaos star), starting success rate of about 83% in original rules can be achieved with:

1 purple (default difficulty) + 4 blue + 1 red (5 Strength and 1 step in reckless) + 1 yellow (1 level of training) + 1 black (defence)

Applying Your rule to that gives us about 76% (again if I did not make any bugs).

7% is still quite good, not 10%, but not bad at all.

Now experienced fighter.

You say 95% using original rules, thats...

1 purple (default difficulty) + 4 blue + 1 red (5 Strength and 1 step in reckless) + 3 yellow (3 levels of training) + 2 black (2 defence) + 3 white (specialisations, fortune, whatever)

Applying Your rule to the above gives us about 91% chance of success.

So we get about 4% chance decrease in this case, but not 10%, not even close.

Don't know, if You checked, but the same (almost the same, about 1-2% difference) amount of percentage decrease can be achieved by simply adding 1 small black misfortune die to the pool (and thats much, much easier and faster, than counting additional challenges, and rerolling dice) .

Anyway, its Your rules, so You choose what to use, but 10%... I'm afraid not.

And to be a bit more on topic.

What I seek is not decreasing starting chances, more like flattening steep learning curve, and decreasing high rank chances to get some space for spells, blessings, potions, low magic items (like charms for example), and fortune points (my first session was with 2-nd and 3-rd rank characters, and my minimax player refused to use even single fortune point, and that speaks LOUD).

I check everything I can to achieve that, but sometimes I end up in a dead end.

My last idea is: decrease the starting creation points by 5, and leave attributes at the point of creation, only specialisations allowed after that (so if you start with 3 blue dice in Strength, you will stay on 3 to the end, only possibility to increase the chances is to buy specialisations).

To counter the lowered damage potential, players are allowed to count their specialisations acquired in corresponging attribute to damage they deal, but that is it, no more.

I found out that original mechanic plays great if you do not go further than to some point in your attributes (about 4), anything higher is just high fantasy in my dictionary .

Feel free to disagree.

I'm unable to change my mind anyways (unless I change it myself), even if proved wrong .

I have to admit I cheated a bit when calculating.

Using these pools:

1. 2 blue + 2 red + 1 yellow + 1 white + 1 black + 1 purple

2. 2 blue + 3 red + 3 yellow + 2 white + 2 black + 1 purple

Having a total of 8 challenge symbols on the purple die give an average of 1 challenge per roll.

Instead of using a reroll I let the chaos star count for 3 challenges, by using a modified die roller and 1000 rolls. That gave about 10% change in both cases, compared to the calculated percentages from jaj22's die roller.

I know it may not be accurate, but never thought it was that a big difference. Are you sure about that? Did you change the die roller to reflect both a reroll and TWO challenges. Also the die roller I tried with rerolls on the purple die didn't have rerolls on rerolls.

But if what you say is true then by going with three challenges on the chaos star, it will create the desired effect, plus a bit because of rerolls.

Gallows said:

Quite sure.

If Jaj22 algorithm works like intended, then my small changes shouldn't brake it (I only changed number of successes chaos star removes, and copied expertise die rerolling part to challenge die for one example - with proper changes of course).

I made another 2 checks adding a 4 challenges to chaos star, and no rerolls.

on first example it went from 83% to 73%

on second from 94% to 89%.

5 challenges, and no rerolls

on first example 83% to 72%

on second 94% to 87% (adding reroll here went down additional 2% using 5 challenges on chaos star)

Adding black die to the roll INSTEAD changing chaos star:

first example: 83% to 77%

second example: 94% to 92%

Adding purple die to the roll INSTEAD changing chaos star:

first example: 83% to 68%

second example: 94% to 88%

If You ask me, I would say adding challenges to a chaos star is a dead end.

Yes, it helps with a percentage, but on the other hand, not only it complicates counting, and adds silly amount of punishment to chaos star (5 challenges to achieve 11% on low, and 7% on high rank character), but also requires additional rerolls, and that takes precious time.

Look how much simplier and faster is just adding a single die to the pool. And the result is comparable.

I think, that myself I just stick to lowering max cap on attributes a bit more (and maybe not rerolling expertise dice).

I try to keep amount of dice in a pool and number of rerolls as low as possible.

With 5 challenges on the chaos star you say. That's 12½% chance for 5 challenges. But it's not just when using a single challenge die. Remember reactive defences. That second or third challenge die is better as well.

Using jaj22's and the modified dice roller with three challenges on the chaos star I get.

95% -> 87% using 10.000 rolls on the experienced character.