While prepping the 1e/2e (now 3e) scenario "With a little help from my friends," I was calculating scale difficulty and came up with a standard format. I'd like to hear your thoughts before I add it to my house rulebook. Non-heroic characters are any that aren't trained in weapon or ballistic skill (e.g. forger, envoy, apothecary)

STANDARD ENCOUNTER FORMULA

RANK1

Three character party standard (one combatant, one non-heroic, one spellcaster). Four character party is assumed to be (one melee, one ranged, one non-heroic, and one spellcaster). Five character party (two combatants, one non-heroic, one wizard, one priest). Standard monster is the ungor (2-skull).

Combat Encounter Difficulty

• Simple - one 1-skull creature per character (or one solo 2-skull creature per two characters)
• Easy - one 1-skull creature per character PLUS one 2-skull creature
• Average - one 2-skull creature per character PLUS one 3-skull creature
• Hard - one 2-skull creature per character PLUS one 4-skull creature (or two 3 skull)
• Daunting - two 2-skull creatures per character PLUS one 3-skull creature

Add one additional for each additional issue:

• no non-heroic characters
• iron-breaker.
• 5 character party
• Double the numbers if there is a rally phase (half before and half after on average).

Rank 2 ?

Let's hear some feedback here! What have your experiences been?

Jh

Emirikol, I applaud your attempt at making encounter standards. I've been challenged getting my head wrapped around creating encounters in WFRP, primarily because its so unlike generating encounters in D&D. I think the game is missing encounter standards, specifically to help block headed GM's such as myself.

However, I've found the skull ranking misleading. In preparation for my first game coming up this saturday a few friends and I have play-tested numerous battles to get a sense of balance and unfortunately, haven't had consistency. For example, I've found that Beastmen are significantly tougher than Greenskins, but share similiar skull ratings. In addition, the encounter's changed significantly when the situation changes. For example, in the scenario where the party attacks a Beastman camp, the party wins the majority of times walking away with light wounds, however, if the same amount of Beastmen ambush the party, it's a TPK, or something very bad. Same exact number of opponents entirely different outcomes.

Also, I've fought battles where the opponents in this case goblins fight very differently when used as "henchmen" vs. individuals creatures. Different outcomes, and a very different tone to each encounter. For example, I had two PC's against three goblins and one ork and then had the same PC's fight three henchmen units of three gobbo's each and one ork. I didn't tell the PC's anything other than now you see nine gobbo's vs. three. The PC's took a completely different approach when encountering the larger group, but more often the outcome was the same. (I've found that henchmen are damaged more easily than a single model of the same type, but potentially do a greater amount of damage initially.)

And this is something I really like about WFRP. As a GM, it has forced me to think more about my encounters as a way to create the story, as opposed to creating a balanced battle, or a means to deliver X amount of treasure, or experience, or whatever. I'm also looking forward to my PC's getting a rude awakening now and then. Let's face it, a Goblin in the D&D world, is a goblin, whether he's standing still, charging, swinging from a vine, etc. There is also a lot of variability based on which action cards you play as well which should be no surprise as different tactics will change outcomes.

So I guess my point is kudo's on the encounter standards, because I think some more guidance is needed than suggested by the rulebooks, but because of the variability it is by no means as "once and for all" situation.

That being said, I think you could replace one single creature = one single unit of henchmen of that creature type X the number of players in the party. Although I wouldn't go any higher than four henchmen is a unit. I'd likely break it up to have more flexibility with the units. Basic guidance based on my limited play-testing. Hoping to put all this together is a single adventure.

Cheers

For random encounters I'd just draw one random main creature from the deck (creatures vault) and then pick a fitting henchman from the deck.

If the rank 1 characters meet a giant... so be it. I guess they just have to run as fast as they can.

I have always found random encounters tailored to the players abilities to be dull, because that really means they never become more powerful relatively speaking.

It's much nicer if they meet a giant at rank one and flee as fast as they can only to meet a gian at rank 3+ and kill it.

Hi,

Emirikol, I like what you have done there. The skull ratings in the book seemed like a rough guide at best to me, getting a better fix on it could be a worthwhile endevour. I would second Dougs points about situational advantages, used a clan Eshin Assassin in a game recently. In a small room the poor chap would be toast, but as my players found chasing him around the rooftops of Ubersreik all five of them couldnt get close, and would have likely been in more trouble had only one of them reached him.

But back to the point about looking at a formulae for finding relative difficulty levels, I dont think it is quite right putting Ironbreaker as an issue. This works for scratch built parties but halfway through rank 1 any number of characters may have acquired heavy armour. IMHO just putting Per Char with Soak 5+ may be a more accurate point? It may be helpful to new GMs to also list particular action combo's that might come up as issues (as helpfully illustrated in Liber Fanatica ). Eg Who's Next on a melee char, Immobilising Shot on a ranged char, and even "non heroic" chars using Improved Guarded Position to protect their more aggressive friends.

Hope this doesnt come across too critical, I do like the concept. I just have to plan sessions where geographical issues mean a couple of players can only attend every other session or so. One of these is a Priest of Sigmar who has taken Who's Next, with another PC using Imp Grd Pos behind him he makes a mess of my minions alarmingly quickly. the encounters I plan for when he can make it do need adjusting alot for weaker opponents.

Gallows, I agree entirely. I wouldnt see this as a way to make all encounters tricky but acheivable, more as a useful tool to guage likely success rates. It certainly doesnt stop you from throwing something really nasty and reminding the players of their mortality, and the usefulness of athletics... or a horse .

Have fun.

I thought about going back through the relatively short list of monsters and re-Skull'ing them. We'll see if that can get done. They didn't make that much sense to me either when I compared them to each other.

jh

Gallows said:

I completely agree! Players need to learn that just because they meet a monster, doesn't mean they're surposed to kill it. It can of course be a problem with a Slayer in the group...

Spivo said:

Absolutely right!

"I TOLD you... I told you NOT to wake the dragon! Didn't I !!! "(Quängl, Rank 2 Halfling Dilletant )

Lautrer said:

Yeah... I've also seen some delightfully funny scenes, with one character charging an angry looking troll, while the rest of the group waited. One comment went "Look at it this way, if we help him, we'll cheat him of the glory of killing it singlehanded". The character was ripped to pieces, and the group walked away while the troll ate up it's prey.

This was all done in good humor, but some players will see a monster, and think they're surposed to be able to kill it, seeing as the GM put the monster there.

Spivo said:

Slayers dying isn't a problem. It's a fact of nature

True... but I usually plan my campaigns so the players wont run big risk of dying, unless they do stupid stuff.

So, I will have the players encounter a farm, which is beset by a greenskin scouting party. These greenskins will toy with the farmer, and eventually kill him.

The players can attack the greenskins, and save the farmer, but in doing so they fight 2 orcs and several goblins, which is 90% likely to kill atleast 1 character (4 chars, just started, Amber Wiz, Gambler, Verena Initiate and a bounty hunter, so no real fighters, gambler and initiate even has str 2...).

Or they can wait till daylight, where half the greenskins will be asleep (and drunk from looting the cellar).

With a troll slayer, you suddenly no longer have this option, as he'll just charge... of course the above setup is easy for a troll slayer, but add a troll and it suddenly becomes hard.

So I avoid suicidal characters, because I like my group to stay intact, IF they play it safe/clever. I won't protect the characters, but I focus on investigation/socializing, and my campaign is planned so they can complete it with only a few moderate to hard fights.

What was this thread about btw...?

I like adding challenge skulls whatever to adventures, but I know my group well enough to know what I can throw at them, and what I can't.