OK, long-time gamer and GM here, with lots of different systems under my belt, just got into WFRP recently (bought on a whim, worried it might be more flash than substance, but happy to learn that it's action-packed with substance). I've never struggled so much trying to figure out how to manage combat (I went deep into the forums to read old posts, and I think I get what's intended, but it seems a little broken to me).

According the the rules (p.58 in the main book), basic combat actions have a default challenge of easy (1d). Which is to say, combat doesn't seem to count as an opposed check, since it does not use the Opposed Check Difficulty table on that same page. Furthermore, 1 misfortune die is added for each point of the target's defense.

Which means a new character (I made a wood elf waywatcher), with Strength 3, weapon skill trained, reckless stance of 2, no armor vs an Ungor, would roll (for a basic melee strike):

1 blue

2 red

1 yellow

1 purple

And when the Ungor attacks, the GM would roll (assuming the Savage Strike skill):

4 blue

1 purple

Question: Is that basically correct?

Pg 45/46 of the Tome of Adventure states that NPCs can spend from their ACE allotment to add misfortune dice to player attempts on OPPOSED checks, which would mean that misfortune dice from ACE CAN'T be added to combat, since combat isn't an opposed check. That doesn't seem to be the spirit of the rules, but it does appear to be the words.

My problem seems to be that IF, as the basic combat rules state (pg 58 again), that combat difficulty is 1d plus misfortune dice based on "special conditions or effects", that it doesn't really matter who's attacking who, the difficulty remains the same (difficulty referring to the addition of "bad" dice, not the varying degrees of "good" dice available), with armor and shields being the deciding factor, with skill being taken into account not at all...

So an Ungor attacking my character gets hit with 1d challenge, but if he's attacking a crippled geriatric wearing leather armor, he also has 2 misfortune dice added. Surely armor isn't the only thing affecting your odds of getting hit? What about skill as a warrior? I suppose there's the parry action that I have that grandma doesn't have... which would mean an ungor has the same chance of hitting my unarmored waywatcher as it does of hitting a cripple in armor?!

On the other hand, I could switch the whole thing to an Opposed Check, which would leave our poor Waywatcher with the addition of 2 more challenge dice and a fistful of misfortune on the attempt to hit, with the Ungor still only having 1 challenge die, but with added misfortune dice from weapon skill...

Can someone please set me straight? I'm really looking forward to running this system, but I need combat to make sense to me, and right now it doesn't. Home Brew rules are welcome too, if the basic system really is just one challenge die...

Sorry for the length (and I'm sure SOMEWHERE in the forums this discussion has already been had), just really want to get this right.

You've got it pretty much right (though there aren't any black dice for targets defence included in your rolls).

As I see it the system you describe is the core mechanic. The GM can than adjust chances to hit etc as he sees fit by adding white and black (or even purple dice) to the dice pool to adjust the chances of hitting.

So if you have a trained soldier, up against a village idiot with a bad leg. Add white dice to the warriors to hit pool, and black dice to the idiots to represent that it is easier or harder to for each to hit the other. Then of course there's dice for situational modifiers and so on...

The flexibility of the system is its strength so don't be scared of adjusting the dice pools as you see fit.

Oh, and in my experience those yellow skill dice are worth their weight in gold. It's amazing when my players role how often the open ended success (hammer with a plus) come up, again and again...

Thanks for the reply.

It just felt like there should be more to it. It bothers me that attack difficulty is based solely on the combo of attacker's skill level vs defender's armor level. And of course, the addition of ACE misfortune dice, which technically shouldn't be used since we're not rolling an opposed check, which likewise means you shouldn't go adding misfortune dice on the NPCs attack roll based on a character's weapon skill or specializations or whatever. I guess I'll just hack it a little and hopefully get it right the first session (or I'll have some really confused players when I go changing everything). Or I'll just go with opposed checks, which at least account for everything, though it may make for some brutally difficult fights at first...

Further thoughts from other GMs would be appreciated to how they mechanically account for varying skill levels, weapon and armor strengths, terrain, anything and everything to make it better would be great.

Thanks again!

There are improved versions of the basic attack cards that can be purchased that help take into account the ability of experienced fighters adding to defence ratings

Likewise, there are action card combos that work well for experienced fighters, riposte in particular is a useful card to have when defending.

I think some of the "standard" ideas that you see in most other RPGs are in WFRP V3, except that that are cleverly hidden away in some of the action cards and underlying mechanics so that people can just get on with playing the game in a more natural way instead of trying to worry about specific rule situations that are given specific rule book sections in other RPGs.

Great for new groups but it can be a little disconcerting for experienced GMs and gamers, I think, who are used to have things explained to them in rule terms in a rule book, whereas a lot of the underlying rules in WFRP V3 are on the cards and being followed by FFG designers from one card to the other, but aren't overtly explained to the player/GM

For instance, several of the community (myself included) think at some stage further advanced defence actions will be introduced (that require a certain skill specialisation to purchase) to further increase the defence dice options of experienced fighers, over and above their armour values.

A little leap of faith is suggested before you go ahead and start creating house rules, IMO.

Naythun said:

You're interpreting this wrong, check the FAQ (always a good idea to do when in doubt). The ACE budget can be spent on resisting PC actions also on regular checks.

From the FAQ:

Can the GM spend an enemy’s Aggression or Cunning budget to resist an attack or action which is not an opposed check?
Yes, the GM can spend an NPC’s Aggression and Cunning dice to make incoming attacks and actions more challenging, if the NPC in question is a direct target of the effect.

I would even push it to allow Expertise dice to be added as purple dice, but that's a house rule. The GM is always able to add challenge/misfortune/fortune as he sees fit. At the moment WFRP3e relies almost exclusively on GM discretion to scale difficulties more than the standard (+action) difficulty.

If you think it should be harder to hit just make it so. If you want something a bit more thought-through and generalised I suggest having a look in the house rules forum, there's plenty of people who have suggested tweaks that incorporate things like agility-> more defense (but beware of "double dip" for agi-based ranged combatants).

A few points you may want to consider:

1. As others have mentioned, A/C/E can be used defensively. The FAQ addresses this, and the GM's toolkit has some additional optional things you can do with A/C/E. The implication is that the GM can improvise applications of those budgets on the fly, and use them for anything that strikes them as reasonable.

2. You make no mention of Active Defenses. All characters (not just PCs, but technically also all NPCs) have access to every Basic Action they qualify for, and that includes Parry, Dodge, and Block if they meet the requirements. A character with Weaponskill trained doesn't have a higher defense across the board, but they're likely to add at least two black dice to at least the first attack against them. Effectively your defense varies blow by blow, and you get to pick and choose which attacks you concentrate your defenses against.

3. Guarded Position and Assess the Situation are also basic actions, and while not as flexible as the Active Defenses, they are really good defensive options. Base defense is low, but there's a lot of things you can do to pump it up turn-by-turn. One character doing Guarded Position can cover the vulnerabilities of the rest of the engagement.

4. GMs should be handing out lots of white and black dice based on situational modifiers. Higher ground, good tactics, somebody backing you up, bad weather, etc. Use some interesting location cards, and make sure your players know about the assist manoeuvre. Drop white and black dice on them fast and plentiful like water from the sky. It's a rare roll at my table that doesn't have both black and white dice added to it. The way the dice stack up is one of the cool things about the core mechanic, don't be afraid to use it.

5. Combat in this game is meant to be bloody and quick. Both sides will hit more often than they miss. Most fights are 3 rounds or shorter. Players who regularly charge into combat unthinking will end up dead. That is all an intentional design choice to match the grim and gritty setting, and the high hit percentages back it up nicely.

6. As to your specific example, Beastmen are great attackers, but not necesarily great defenders, especially Ungor. They lack discipline, as mentioned in their special rule called "Unruly". That gives us a clue to their Defense of 0. When I GM them, I narrate their half-crazed attacks that leave them open to counter-attack. Note that the Gor and Wargor have higher Defense ratings, and thus are a little harder to hit. I play them just as wild, but mention that their higher skill and thicker hides make them harder to score a meaningful blow on. I'm also much more likely to use active defenses and the like for those beefier Gors than for the unruly Ungor.

This thread should be made sticky. Like the OP, I also struggled with the concept of a universal difficulty rating to hit a target. After reading everyone's comments not only do I understand the rational behind the game's mechanics I've come around 180 degrees and fully embrace the widely dynamic nature of the game's combat framework. Thanks for everyone's input, and for the OP presenting the question in a clear and well thought manner.

I would love to see FFG write up a few different fights just to help illustrate the mechanics of a simple, moderate and complex fight from beginning to end. Something that could be accessed on this site as a download to help ease some of the confusion that a new player/DM inevitably experiences. I think that might speed up gameplay and help overall.

Old World Dude said:

What an excellent idea! It would go a long way to answering many questions posed here...

How does agility effect how easy it is to dodge an attack?

Nytakriss said:

Having a sufficient agility (3+) is a requirement to obtaining the Dodge action in the first place. Is that what you mean?

pumpkin said:

Not quite, perhaps the question should have been how does having an agility of 5 make you harder to hit than a agility of 3, in other words, once you qualify for dodge, how does it scale? I'm just worried the only meaningful defence is heavy armour & shield, not very characterful for a thief.

Nytakriss said:

Well it makes you harder to hit because you have improved defense cards,that require 4 agility,so character with 3 wont have it and character with 4 will.

Nytakriss said:

You're right to be worried. Apart from active defenses, heavy armour and a shield is the best defense you can get. Defenses do not scale with agility (but for the requirements for the dodge active defenses). I guess we might see new cards that can provide extra defense for high agility PC's but I wouldn't count on it.

However, being in combat is not very characteristic for a thief at all so I don't see the problem. Thieves in WFRP are not meant to be in combat, they should avoid any direct contact with the enemy and only attack when there is little danger to themselves. If your thief finds himself in combat time after time, then get him a set of armour and a shield, being in combat all the time makes him more of a soldier than a thief anyway.

The thing is that high agility does not help you if you are standing toe to toe in a fight.

If on the other hand you have high agility and just want to stay out of harms way (ie you give up your attack) then as your GM I'd be adding black dice to your opponents dice pool - the higher your agility the more dice. Likewise. If the player with high agility comes up with some clever way of using that agility in an attack (rather than "I attempt to hit the snotling") then reward with white dice for the attack, or black dice on the opponents attack depending on the situation....

The black and white dice give a GM great flexibility to work through these "problems".

Munchkin said:

I certainly agree that black and white dice can be thrown around to account for any old thing that seems reasonable...

BUT

Agility doesn't help in a toe to toe fight? With this existing rules set, no it does not. However, I think there is a far greater amount of proof available in the real world to show that strength is useless against skill, and skill and speed will destroy raw power any day. And yet, again and again in games, we have rules built around the core mechanic that says if you are stronger you are therefore a better fighter, and that simply isnt so.

A quick example from sword fighting; There isn't a single bulky fencer to be found in world class competition. Why? Because strength is irrelevant to skill with a sword (or at least it is when using an epee or other finesse sword).

And why not one from MMA? Yes, we see knock-out punchers who are also skilled and fast, but we see stronger (ie: bigger and stronger) guys get owned because they simply can not keep up with their opponent who is faster and more skillful.

Skill beats strength. Almost always. In real-life I mean. It's just a shame that a character must be strong and armored to be a good combatant (consistently I mean <yes I know there are skill cards like nimble strike etc for the agility freaks>). One could argue that the ability to connect with a strike is based solely on one's skill and agility, and one's damage is based solely on one's skill and strength. Just food for thought.

OH, and LOVED the suggestion to see some official material published (online one would assume) giving further clarification and examples to fights involving different complexities and situations etc. GREAT idea. The issue being NOT the ability of the GM to create a good experience for his players, or the ability of the GM to dummy up whatever by playing with blacks and whites, but rather the desire of the GM to provide the BEST experience.

By toe to toe I was meaning standing there trading blows with someone.

As to agility vs strength well that could devolve into a whole argument about fighting styles and tactics. I agree that in modern fencing agility and speed trump strength. But also look at the difference in fighting styles between say a light weight and heavy weight boxer...

Any how, I guess one thing you could do is for weapons where you think Agil is more important use that as the base for the dice pool and not Str.

Just out of interest I did a quick test to see how a skilled fighter with three yellow dice would stack up against a 5 str non skilled fighter.

I only used 12 dice rolls for each set using no stance dice (just blue dice) and one purple. I used no black dice. If some one had more time they could do a bigger sample to get a more 'accurate' result but here's what I got

Average for a skilled fighter per roll of dice pool: 3.25 hits, 1.66 boons, .66 sigmar stars, 1 miss.

Average for str 5 fighter per roll of dice pool: 2.08 hits, 1.66 boons, 1 miss

So, it appears that your right - the only difference between the two is that 2 out of 3 rounds the skilled fighter would get 3 overall successes on average allowing them access to more damage depending on the action card they used. Even then considering the other guys strength of 5 it would depend very much on the card as to if the skilled fighter was doing much more in the way of damage....

Hmmm... and given that a character with a skill trained three times is significantly advanced (more thank likely).... I'm not sure what to make of that... I'll have to have a think....

Naythun said:

In this case I would assume that the faster fighter had Improved Dodge.

I think that people are ignoring the card aspect in favor of the stats. Both work together to determine competence, and one is not more important than the other.

For me, I'm not so sure the cards and stats are equally important. Take your advanced dodge for example - once you have used it, it has to recharge before it can be used again. While a character gets the dice for the stats each and every turn. Not to mention there is a great difference between a stat (or stance dice) compared to a defence dice....

In saying that - I still believe that there is enough flexibility in the dice system to allow a gm to give advanced characters (be that experience or high stats) an advantage if they wish.

Munchkin said:

What I am saying is that you should consider them as part of the whole. If you just look at abilities and skill training, you aren't looking at the whole picture. You can't take a piece and treat it like it's everything.

True, true... and I think that is exactly what you need to do with this system. Look at it as a whole...

This is what I do for the most part, but every now and then I fall into the trap of seeing the individual trees and not the forest .

Naythun said:

Well, check the muscle mass of an elite fencer's thigh. Fencers are very muscular but in a way that is optimized for the fast, explosive combat style used with an epee. Strength is certainly not irrelevant for this kind of fighting, maybe if you define strength as a body-builder trait. I think the confusion here is that wfrp3e is using the concepts (Strength, Agility) a bit differently than what is normally done. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that the following is how things work in reality, this is just my interpretation on what the characteristics mean in WFRP3e.

Strength is not only raw muscle power, but also the ability to use that strength in a proper way as well as control over different parts of your body. A strength 5 PC does not have to be a bulky muscle man, he/she can be a lean power pack that just has excellent body control. This is why strength is used to determine your chances of injuring the opponent with a melee weapon. It should also be noted that one attack in 3e is not a single swing, with the abstract scales used, one round can be as long/short as the GM (or players) want. Strength thus also provides a measure on how long you can keep up.

Agility on the other hand is more about flexibility (both in body and to some extent mind), speed and precision. It let's a PC adapt quickly to new situations (a lot of the action cards using agi-based skills are about manouevres) and using situations to your advantage. It's also the characteristic that controls ranged weapons, where precision and situational awareness is everything. You gain little by the ability to make undisturbed extremely precise blows in a melee (because you will almost never be undisturbed), while this is the most important thing for ranged combat.

The elite fencer would have good scores in both of these.

None of the two characteristics improve your defense score more than through the active defenses. I think this is ok. If you want scaling defense I think you should base it on the skill level (perhaps scaling the active defenses by skill level) rather than the characteristics. There have been some suggestions for that in the house rules forum.

To add my two cents an the strength, agility and armor topics:

Looking at MMA fighters, it is clear that strength outperforms agility so often that they cannot be fairly compared. That's why there are not only weight classes, but fairly narrow ones. Any significant difference in size (which, in professional athletes, is a good substitute for strength) is so unbalancing that they will not allow the fighters to match up because the fight will simply be unfair. Featherweight champion Jose Aldo (145lb) is monsterously fast and skilled, but I wouldn't put money on him vs. much slower, much less skilled Kimbo Slice (225 lb.) A fairer comparision of speed versus strength would be Aldo versus the much larger, much slower, but comparably skilled Brock Lesnar (265lb,) which wouldn't even be a fight it would be a massacre. Likewise, he would have little chance against Georges St-Pierre (170), possibly even losing out to as small a difference as Ben Henderson's 10 lb edge.

On a smaller scale, Aldo was marginally faster than the marginally stronger Urijah Faber (also 145 lb) and completely dismantled him (sniff, single tear.) This fight, however, didn't turn on just that one axis: Aldo came into the cage with a better plan and implemented it perfectly. But even conceding this, they were very closely matched. Faster Ben "Smooth" Henderson took the title from stronger Jamie "******" Varner, but again, the actual differences in strength were fairly small.

"But I've got a sword, you silly man." Looking at manuscripts such as Talhoffer or I.5, contemporaneous accounts of swordfighting featured large amounts of wrestling. Even without the addition of arm locks and hip throws, usually a stronger individual can also move their weapon faster. Applying muscular force to a lever (axe, club, sword) will move it faster, and make it hit much harder (and thus more difficult for our weaker opponent to defend.) Even if you aren't playing an active defense, it was always my assumption that you're actively trying to avoid being murdered. These not-played defenses become less effective in proportion with an opponent's strength, and they get more dice on their attack to show for it.

To further the speed-as-a-characteristic-of-strength argument: gymnasts and ballet dancers are credited with being agile, but they are also freakishly strong. Really strong, especially in the case of male ballet dancers.

As for the effectiveness of armor, there is simply no replacement for heavy armor on the battlefield. Looking at historical battles, light infantry (usually armed with missile weapons) faired poorly against heavy infantry (with heavy armor and hand weapons.) To follow a famous example, at Agincourt, the dismounted French men-at-arms, exhausted from marching across deep mud and being pelted with 105-lb draw longbow shot, proved an even match for 4 times their number of English light infantry (archers.) That melee lasted 3 hours before the men-at-arms began collapsing from exhausion (and then having their skulls split with woodsmen's mauls.) The standard tactic for light infantry when faced with heavy infantry (or anything else) is to run away as quickly as possible. Any advantage they have in speed is simply no match for the edge granted by armor.

I know, there's always someone who wants to play Errol Flynn, but it is just not a good idea. Full plate harness isn't like tournament armor: it is flexible, mobile, and allows you to fight very well. Fencing weapons, on the other hand, did not generally develop on the battlefield in the age of armor. The earliest versions of the epee (cf. the English tuck) were used for dispatching incapacitated, mail armored foes, they couldn't do much when faced with a broadsword, much less the speed and power of a greatsword. (As a point of common-historical-inaccuracy: two-handed swords are generally faster to swing and quicker to recover than their one-handed counterparts. Longer lever, more power.) Rapiers were court weapons: for show and duelling similarly armed, unarmored foes.

Excellent arguments on the strength vs agility debate, and I especially enjoyed the more in-depth discussion of MMA fighters and historical combat.

Some related thoughts and maybe even tying it back to the original question as it relates to gameplay:

Yes, a skilled gymnast or fencer may be quite powerful, but power is an indication of speed and strength together, and certainly we can argue what exactly we mean by strength. But suppose we take a World's Strongest Man competitor and give him some game stats. All must agree that we have to give him freakishly high strength stats, after all, the man lifts and pulls and pushes thousands of pounds around. But does that mean if we put a great axe in his hands that he could take out a somewhat skilled swordsman of smaller stature? In game I would have to give the odds of striking and crushing his opponent to the world's strongest man. But in real life? Well, maybe he could, but I think there are laws stopping us from putting these ideas to the test (but I would watch it, oh yes I would). In any case, I think the skilled fighter would win over the strong one.

With our MMA examples; yes there are weight classes which clearly demonstrates the advantage of high strength, but there we are comparing elite fighters (who are therefore somewhat equally skilled) and then giving one higher stats in strength, and likewise, sheer mass is a key advantage when one is wrestling, but on paper, these fighters would likely match up similarly in experience and skilled training, but one would be stronger and one would be more agile. And there, again, I would argue that the smaller fighter is harder to hit than the bigger one, but when the big one does connect, it's all over for the little guy, whose repeated connecting strikes fall ineffectually against the larger man's bulk.

Even allowing for active defense cards, within the rules it's still equally easy to strike and do damage against someone who is lightly armored, highly skilled and trying to avoid harm, as it is against someone who has no skill and will stand and bang while wearing heavy armor. So I suppose I will throw white and black dice around to account for the ease of striking the slow and large and the difficulty in striking the fast and small, and then let damage sort itself out.

Can anyone point me in the direction of a House Rules thread that may relate well to this discussion so that I may see how others have modified the rules (without rooting through pages of unrelated stuff, that is)?

The rules make an attack test 1d by default - but allow the GM the option to change this.

The GM might decide that playing an Active Defence turns a 'vs. Defence' check into a standard opposed check:

• Block: vs Resilience
• Dodge: vs. Coordination
• Parry: vs. Melee Skill

Defence value and extra misfortune/challenge from the Active Defence add to the pool as normal.

For example:

• Fred has a Strength of 4. Melee Skill Trained,
• Harry has a Strength of 4, Melee Skill Trained, Specialism in Parry and the Improve Parry card. Harry is wearing a Chain shirt, giving him a Defence value of 1.

Fred is attacking Harry with a sword.

Normal Dice Pool: 4xBlue, 1xYellow, 1xPurple, 1xBlack

Normal Improved Parry: 4xBlue, 1xYellow, 2xPurple, 1xBlack

Improved Parry where attack is vs. Melee Skill: 4xBlue, 1xYellow, 3xPurple, 3xBlack

As Harry's Str equals Fred's Str the base difficulty is 2d. As Harry is trained in Melee this adds 1 Black. As Harry is specialised in Parry this adds 1 black. As Harry has Improved Parry this adds 1 purple.