So our Troll Slayer who is still rank 1 is doing obscene amounts of damage. It's a combat focused character but it is just silly and really to put up with him, I feel It's hurting the rest of the group as they are nowhere as strong as him and upping challenge makes it harder on them.

The problem is how easy it is to optimise your damage potential, basically with Dual Strike and Berserker action cards, and just basic hand weapons, the Troll Slayer is putting out 16-22 damage each hit, and pretty much never misses. So each turn he can generally one shot most enemy NPC's outside of really high challenge stuff.

Dual Strike is complete garbage, how this got past play testing is pathetic, no risk, maximum damage, and can be used every turn?

So who house rules Dual Strike and what have you done too it. Have considered simply trying to house rule in a recharge of 2 or 3 perhaps.

Yup, Trollslayer (and Ironbreaker) is very prone to getting out of the scale comparing to other characters, especially if made by a power-gamer type PC.

If you don't want any drastic measures, house-rule Double Strike to have 3 recharge, it should tone him down a bit.

If you are an evil GM, then use the Trollslayer career background: Trollslayers want to die a glorious death, make a swarm of goblins and let him roleplay a rearguard action while the rest of PC run away...

Also an adventure focused on Undead could be his undoing, especially with low Wp and no Discipline trained. Same goes for Cultist and any opponents that do stress (and to some point fatigue) damage. Focus on his weak spots

But first and foremost talk to the guy about the character, maybe he'll see that he is taking too much glory off the other PCs and they do not like it?

Steal one of his weapons as a hook for the adventure? There are many possibilities to counter him, but talking is what should be done first IMO.

D.

First and foremost are the other players complaining? If not, don't worry about it.

Tailor the campaign to shift more of a focus on the other players strength. Your Troll Slayer is good in combat and I'm guessing only combat. You need to work details of your adventure to shift the focus away from combat where the Troll Slayer isn't going to be able to take the lead. Perhaps some political, social, stealth or magical based solutions are appropriate. But the bottom line is if you are only designing combat around the Troll Slayer then yes it will feel very one sided.

But ignoring all of that there are still plenty of things you can do in combat for the Troll Slayer. If he's playing correctly (by correctly I mean embodying the essense of the Troll Slayer) he should be charging head first into combat and acting recklessly. He's not going to sit back strategically while the archers pepper his opponents and then when they are softened up he'll charge in. He should be head first full on all the time and storm the Big Bad, not cautiously or strategically work his way up to it. The Troll Slayer is a combat machine, but it's with the intent that he's going to be played recklessly and with a slayers attitude.

This whole balance issue has been a strength and weakness of WFRP for all versions. WFRP careers have always offset mechanical balance with situational balance. Once you can grasp that it's a very powerful tool. If you only ever crunch the numbers you are continuously going to have problems. This is contrary to D&D which has always based it's rules around mechanically balancing characters towards combat and ignoring most other areas. Neither answer is right, it's just about recognizing the differences and adapting your play style accordingly.

Kryyst said:

I agree with most of what Kryyst says, especially with the point about using variety of play experience and situations to balance out the combat-heavy PCs.

However, I definitely disagree with the first two sentences, at least as a blanket statement. It really depends on your group. Some folks (like me) grouse and ***** at the smallest annoyance. Some other players, especially casual gamers and newer gamers, won't complain. They'll just leave the campaign. Or stick around, but not say anything till it's really festered and unsolvable. Maybe they don't realize that changing the rules is an option. Maybe they're there mostly for the social aspects of the game, and don't want to "ruin" someone else's fun by complaining. It's tempting to assume everything's fine if no one's complaining. Tempting, but not always correct. If my instincts are saying there's trouble brewing, I'd broach the subject with the group, and ask for input and feedback. Being proactive is a hallmark of a good GM. Small problems are best solved quickly before they have time to grow into something larger. You might at least bring up the notion that you might have to eventually house-rule the card. Otherwise, every session that goes by sends the implied message that everything is fine as-is. The longer that message is sent, the less likely they'll be to see it from your perspective if and when it gets bad enough you feel you have to house-rule.I learned this the hard way many years ago.

That said, taking away a players toys usually means someone is going to be unhappy. So, if you do house-rule the Double-Strike, you'll want to give it a silver lining. Give them some other bonus to compensate, or let them swap the card out for a different one. Or give them an extra XP so they can pick up a second action to alternate with it. Maybe some other 1-xp equivalent, like a Stance Piece or a Fortune Die or something that's completely outside the advancement scheme. Maybe something in-character instead of mechanical. Figure out what you're willing to offer to compensate, and have it in mind before you bring up the topic of house-ruling their main attack. How long they've been playing it should be a factor here as well. If you could tell the card was broken from the first fight scene, there's probably no need to compensate. But if they'd been playing it that way for 5 or 10 sessions before the problem became obvious, they'll be more attached to the card. That's part of why I suggest nipping it in the bud.

Make it work just like twin pistols card (or whatever it is called), which is more difficult, 2 recharge and nets less damage and I think causes a stress on a 2 bane result...either way, just do that.

Double Strike is the worst written card in the game. Honestly, it should have been cut and I have spent many a thread since publication bitching about this very same point.

Oh, one thing we added to Twin Pistol's comet effect on Conservative side: May hit a second target as a maneuver.

Another option, which is the one we are now toying with is making it just like Execution shot. Which does the same thing as Double Strike and Twin Pistol except, it is harder, has about the same recharge as Twin Pistols, but has a higher cost than both of them.

Honestly, I wish I would have noticed this the first time around and wound have gone with Execution Shot probably. That way, swinging two swords, two pistols, or pistol and sword are all basically governed by the same mechanic. (just my two thoughts)...oh, and is a balanced card.

Just tell him, you're making the game more streamlined as Double Strike is seriously cramping everyone else's fun.

you could also try my solution to the " DS problem" written in this thread

1) Obviously the TS is the most dangerous opponent, so most if not all the enemies will target him. While a TS with double-strike can do a lot of damage, he can't TAKE too much.

2) Don't forget that NPCs get action cards too, and not just the ones in the book under their TOA entry. Have them Dodge/Parry/Block the TS's attacks.

3) Don't forget that NPCs get A/C/E dice to use. Use them to add to the TS's attacks, or add [W] to their init (so they can hit the TS first, etc), and so on.

4) Don't forget that NPCs can be given armor and equipment, rather than relying on the default values in TOA. This option, though, will increase the difficulty for the other players too (although not by much, since all the NPCs should be ganging up on the TS).

4) Don't have so many physical combat encounters. Try focusing more of a session on roleplaying and investigation and social encounters. That TS won't be nearly so hot/impressive when it's a social encounter, and there's no one to hit with his axes. I would recommend about 1 combat per 3-4 hour session, with the rest of the time taken up with social encounters and investigation.

5) None of my players took Double-strike, but I have house-ruled it as a recharge of 2 by default. That's a minimal tweak. It probably could use a bit more, depending, but at a minimum I would bring its recharge somewhat in line with other non-basic action cards.

Just do it like they do it in the movies!

Lots of movies and stories have groups like this. Any Felix and Gotrek story, for example. In situations like this authors traditionally put one 'big-bad-[thing]' in the mix and a bunch of lackies. The Hero will typically engage the powerful opponent, and the rest will hold off the minions. They can do it other ways, but it might not work out so well for them...

This often leads to the powerful character becoming the de facto leader. If your players accept this and work well within this dynamic, it shouldn't be a problem.

Be sure and write scenes where the other players get some spotlight and you'll be fine.

Check out the official Double Strike (and Rapid Fire) Errata here:

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp

Making foes attack the apparently most dangerous PC is a good way to correct it.

Or your strong PC might decide to protect weakers PC and give a new dynamic to your fighting encounters.Our troll slayer died against a troll mounted by a gobelin shaman leading a Waaagh! while he was trying to delay it so the other PC could escape.

New Double Strike is less powerful indeed.

An errata?! Thank god

I've seen this in DnD 4th ed as well. I think there are multiple issues that need to be addressed. Firstly I'd consider the players as players and think about how they are interacting with the game, are they all investing their full range of options in the game? I set about this by awarding positive behaviour in a like manner, so if someone is more into the role play / acting aspect of the game I'd lean their encounters more toward that. If someone is more of a power gamer / 'roll player' I'd lean their encounters toward that. Even in a single fight someone could be having a battle of wits while another confrontation could be a battle of martial skill. They key for me here is whether the other players are putting in a reasonable amount of effort. I know some players will get OCD about power gaming which is fair enough. So long as the other players are pulling their weight.

With the Troll Slayer, they are an iconic part of Warhammer so I wouldn't change them at all. What I would change is what I sent up against them. the source for much of the Troll Slayer fandom are the Gotrek and Felix novels, and if you look at them you see Gotrek doesn't do much for most of the books until a huge monster turns up and then he behaves like a maniac. That's the only point where I'd be at all temped to say something to the player if they were being conservative in their play style.

Finally my other option would be to give the troll slayer what he wants and give him a monster that gives him a proper challenge and one that will kill him easily if he isn't operating at the full extent of his ability.

Troll Slayers are one of the worst classes invented, iconic or not...

Very few PC's seems to be actually roleplaying them correct. They are fairly useless in anything but combat.

If one of my players made one, I'd set up a fight with an orc ambush. XX number of orcs opening fire from above.

The players would be allowed to bunch up in safety behind a rock, but no way out of there. Of course any Troll Slayer who roleplayed right, would charge them to a) Kill them b) Give his comrades a chance to escape.

Dead TS, player open to make a new char. Pretty sure he'd stay away from career from then on.

I took Troll Slayer out of the deck for basic starting options for my group. Was thinking about putting it back once PC's rank 2, but still mulling.

Note, though that Dual Strike has been revised since publication with a new version available for download.

What's everybody thinking about the so-called-nerfs of dual strike and rapid fire?

Was it cut deep enough to be equal to other cards or is it still ridiculously broken (in comparison to the other cards)?

jh

Spivo said:

What makes them a bad class?

There are other careers that can mop the floor with a Troll Slayer. Troll slayers are heavily one sided. You know what they are going to do - charge forward and kill something. Story wise they should be charging forward and killing the biggest thing. You, as a GM can plan for that, you can manipulate that and if you are being smart about it create a lot of fun out of the process as well.

Out of combat they are colour for the game. If you have players not playing them correctly (whatever that means) that's a player issue. They'll play any character you give them in a way deemed inappropriate.

I know some people have pulled Waywatcher or Swordmaster out and made them intermediate careers (or advanced careers). Troll slayer would definitely be an option for this approach as well. This way, they could have some in-game background instead of instant background. All depends on the group I suppose.

jh

Hi,

IMO, Troll Slayers aren't as strong as some may think.
They are focused solely on combat and cannot wear armour which is a drawback. What's more, Slayers are hardly suitable to anything but slashing the enemies. Additionaly, the Troll Slayers are obsessed with seeking an honorable death in combat - it's not easy to play a suicide person

Next, let's think whether the Slayer career is imbalanced or just the dwarf race is strong?

As pointed above (or below) - the Troll Slayers have high ST and TO and cannot wear armour, but they have a very hard skin and fair amount of wound points. Hm... is there anything more what distinguishes Slayers from other careers? I think not.

Thus I believe, that the Players are able to create characters who will be as powerful as the Troll Slayers, for example, the dwarf Miner from the demo adventure (or my Player's Priest of Sigmar). Players must only purchase high ST, an armour, some action cards like: Thunderous Blow or Double Strike and train WS (all the dwarves may train it). Remind that traits are not restrictions (of course the GM should feel free treating them as restrictions), so both the Player of Troll Slayer character and the Player of Miner character can have the same cards.

My intention is to show that any properly designed character can be as strong or even stronger than the Troll Slayer. It's just the matter of a good selection of a race, action cards, talents and equipment.

In conclusion, it seems that the Troll Slayers aren't the bad guys - it's the combination of the dwarven race (3 ST, 3 TO), action cards and the ST + TO characters (+1 ST and TO) strong.

But that's my point of view

Cheers!

Stating the obvious: Troll Slayers are typically combat monsters. Put them in a non-combat situation and they're near-useless. If you're looking to give your other players a chance to shine, give them equal game time to do something to do that they do particulary well and the Troll Slayer cannot.

Bah, they're ok. I think a good swordmaster is much better as they have armor in addition to extreamly high output (especially once they are deep conservative with alot of recharge going on)...

Besides, these are the following ways currently to bone/screw over the players: wounds, criticals, fatigue, stress, insanity, corruption (soon is disease). You can feel free to find one of those that applies best to make a trollslayer cautious (though that's not in their character). If they can kill in one hit, don't use minions as much. When the adventure calls for 4 groups of minions, instead, use 4 common creatures and whoop up on the guy killing them with ease - monsters would want to tend to the greatest threat too. A trollslayer, even with 6 toughness cannot soak that much (compaired to an ironbreaker with a tower shield), so after a round or two of combat, he should be feeling it.

I dunno, in some ways, I like having a character in the party being very capable for combat. My group has a Swordmaster and yeah, he is pretty insane in combat, but that generally means he can take on the 'leader' of the bad guys while the other party members handle the support. We ran the 'Day Late' encounter without the Swordmaster and the 'boss' mobs tore the other people apart pretty easily.

So having the Swordmaster (or likely Slayer etc) around simply lets me, as GM to include some mobs that would normally mop the floor with the others in the group. I just make sure I put enough 'normal' mobs in to occupy the rest of the party.

Kryyst said:

The problem with Troll Slayers isn't that they're too strong or that they may be played incorrectly, it's that they may be played correctly: suicidal. A Troll Slayer seeks honorable death, not a careful tactical retreat. He doesn't want to avoid a tough enemy that could wipe out the party, he wants to confront him head on!

To a Troll Slayer, survival is failure. Why would he go about getting involved in careful intrigue and investigation, when there's ancient dwarven cities that need to be saved from marauding greenskins and skaven?

A well-played Troll Slayer in your campaign will make the campaign violent and short (like the Troll Slayer himself! Ha!)

mcv said:

Sure but they also don't want to throw their lives away needlessly. Intrigue isn't their thing, but thwarting evil still is. They wouldn't be suited to an ongoing entirely political campaign but their is no reason they won't get involved in the game from time to time and hopefully (entertainingly) crap all over someones carefully laid plans. If we look to Warhammer novels as a source the Slayers in them have been around for a long time on many adventures. They don't just charge the first dragon they seek. They set out into the world to atone for some failure. It's a journey of penance and often drinking and bar fighting.

Where it does come to odds is the pure description of the Troll Slayer vs all the background source material for them. They are more like semi-honorable members of a biker gang then suicide searching time bombs.

Kryyst said:

Not needlessly, but when they do get into a fight, are they going to back down when the fight is too tough? Especially if it's an important fight, they'd be pretty likely to sacrifice their lives so their friends can finish it/run away to fight another day/do whatever needs to be done.

It's how slayers are used in WFB, right? Charge the big monster and die, slowing it down for a few turns that it would otherwise have spent rampaging through your elite units.

Kryyst said:

I approve of both of these observations.

mcv said:

And I fail to see why they would be acting any differently in the RPG beyond a player not getting into the role. That's exactly what they should be doing. Charging the big bad, probably slaughtering a few minions on the way. Retreating from battle is probably going to be a forced act by the other players. Now from a GM side defeat can be narrative, if you don't want the Slayer to die now have them be ko'd and left for dead. This situation happened a few times in the Gortrek & Felix novels. There's lots of role play potential and story driving fun that a Slayer can bring to the table.

Where this does break down is when a player doesn't really get what being a Slayer is all about and they use them like any other combat career or (and I personally find this worse) they play the Slayer like he's big dumb idiot always picking fights over the silliest of things flipping off nobles and basically just bad play. Because, and I think this is important, Slayers were Dwarfs long before they were Slayers and while they are stubborn, bold and brash they are still Dwarfs and full of honor and pride. If they lacked either of those they wouldn't have become Slayers in the first place. That is the important thing to really playing a Slayer correctly.