The standard combat mechanic for WFRP3 works very well in most mass melee situations. The system provides a fairly fast-paced resolution system that allows a combat involving 3+ PCs to be run in a reasonable timeframe. WFRP3 is not about combats that last an entire session (typically).

However, there are cases where the default 'vs Defence' mechanic may lead to poor results - narratively and mechanically. The case in point being formal one-on-one duels. Take for example a duel of honour between two highly skilled fencers - to first blood.

Both combants are:

• Stance 2 Conservative on the first round
• Strength 4
• Weapon Skill 3
• Specialised in Fencing
• 2 Fortune Die in Strength
• Agility 4
• They have Improved Dodge and Parry

Using the default 'vs. Defence' check and assuming both Improved Dodge and Parry are used, the first actor has a 83% of success.

So essentailly this epic duel between two master fencers is decided on the initative test. Even if the 1st attack misses the result is simply a not very interesting. It's too quick. It has no drama. You might as well toss a coin. The situation is little better if the duel is to the death or yield.

The Errol Flynn's of the Old World don't make very elegent fight-scenes - they simply hack junks from each other until one falls over...

Would would be better in this case (imo) is a Competitive check - with some sort of threshold for getting through the opponents defences.

In this system the combants would make the competitive checks until one score three more successes than the other. This might be a fair number of rolls - but not a silly number. Even if the winner that round doesn't find an opening he may fatigue and stress the loser.

Once an opening is found the winner can use any action card he wishes - i.e. Melee Attack.

What do you think?

I was thinking something similar but just using a progress tracker.

Setup a tracker with 5 spaces if it's to the death or 10 if it's to the blood. Reason being if it's to the death combatants are going to be more aggressive and ignoring the little cuts, where as if it's the to blood they have to be more defensive because it's the little cuts that matter.

Initiative doesn't matter.

Each round both players make competitive WS checks the winner advances his tracker a number of spaces based on his success. No advance for a tie, 1 advance for a win, 2 advances if he scores double of more successes . If you have more boons then your opponent your opponent suffers a fatigue or stress - your choice. So it could be that you win (more success) but suffer fatigue because your opponent had more boons.

Whoever reaches the event space first gets to initiate an attack (playing any action card they want - so this could be a stunt as well). The defender may play any defensive/reaction cards (riposte for example) but may not directly attack back. If this doesn't end the fight the trackers are moved back to the beginning and the process starts all over.

I like both these ideas and am going to give them a whirl with my players. Thanks guys!

Kryyst said:

Yes. This is very similar. I considered using a tracker, but thought I'd keep it neat/simple and make it an Action card. The disavantage is that it has no memory.

In my system the Competitive check is (typically) rolled twice a round - so if other things are happening the duel is progressing at a reasonable pace. Also a combatant can opt to break and run on his initative. That doesn't appear to be an option in yours.

Ten spaces sounds too much imo. You need at least 5 good successes. That's at least 5 rounds, perhaps 10+ if the combatants are evenly matched. Assuming you need three hits to wound threshold, that is potentially a 30+ round combat. Stress/Fatigue is probably going to dominate - perhaps too much.

I think we would need to actually playtest these systems. I think a three success threshold on a competitive check might make too long a combat. Imo a duel shouldn't take more than 15 minutes - particularly as the other players may simply be spectators.

Fresnel said:

I guess it depends on what you are looking for in a dual. I personally don't think 10 rounds of rolls is to much for a 1st blood style of dual between two equally skilled opponents, it's easy enough to shorten though if play testing proves otherwise. Also I wouldn't run a dual along side of normal combat it would be a separate thing not really lining up with the traditional round format.

I don't get what you mean by three hits to wound, I'm thinking first blood as in the first attack to do damage, not the first to crit. To the death is well to the death.

Also there is nothing really preventing a character from cutting and running at that point the dual is off and you roll initiative and start a normal combat round.

But yes, they'd need some play testing.