When you're a fresh rank 1 with decent stats and perhaps two advanced defence cards, the attack vs. defence balance is pretty good.

When you get to rank 3 however, your offensive capabilities have increased a lot, while your defensive capabilities have just increased very slightly.

I don't like this balance very much, but I am at a loss in terms of finding a good solution or house rule.

I have already tried adding black dice for training in relevant skills to the attack, but it introduces up to three extra dice to pools without having a noticable impact on the result. It doesn't work.

I have tried changing the challenge die to make success harder, but this doesn't scale very well with low rank characters or out of combat checks. It didn't work very well.

I want rank 3 characters to be better at attacking others, But I also want them to be better at defending themselves.

What I would really want was for a rank 3 vs. a rank 3 character to have about the same hit ratio against each other as a rank 1 character vs. a rank 1 characters. Using the logic that while a well trained warrior is better at attacking, he will alwo be better at defending and two well trained warriors can have a long fight because they are also good at defending instead of just giving advantage to the one attacking first.

Any ideas?

One thing, would be to make "advanced parry/dodge/block", require rank 2 training, and adds 2 purple, replaces improved parry/dodge/block.

Each rank of combat career completed adds 1 purple to attacks against said char.

Of course this means finding bonuses for npc's/monsters, that balances it.

Yeah that's a possibility, but it would mean potentially 7 purple in a pool as opposed to the current 4.

I am leaning towards a solution that does not add more dice to the pools. Something static and easily scalable.

You'd have to say "each martial rank deducts 1 succes, or boon", or something likewise.

I don't really mind the amount of dice though.

Idea to scale defence as you rank up:

• In combat, the chaos star counts as a number of extra challenges equal to the opponents relevant skill (Weapon skill for attacks that can be parried, coordination for attacks that can be dodged, resilience for attacks that can be blocked. You can only add challenges for one of the skills). This means if you attack someone with 3 ranks in weapon skill, you would count your chaos stars as 3 challenges on top of the chaos star effect.
• (Each defence card used reduce the opponents successes by one.)

This rule does not give a big change to the chance to hit with a single challenge die in the pool (only 12½% chance to roll a chaos star), but when you use improved defence cards it becomes increasingly potent as you use more cards.

This rule will tip the balance, so defense scales as you rank up. I'll try to do some tests rolls later and post the results, comparing RAW against this house rule. I won't take the reduction of successes by defence cards into account when I do the test rolls and I'd have to either do it manually or calculate it myself.

Gallows said:

I really like this, but can't see just by looking at it, how it will affect the balance... Do you mean to add relevant training when performing relevant defence? So when using block, the star uses resilience for challenges?

Also you have to consider how this should affect monsters. House rules generally uses expertice dices as training, but some monsters has 4+ expertice dice, which might be very harsh...

Also some actions vs. defence, allready has a purple dice added (so base is 2 purple dice), and these actions will become much more affected by this.

If you decide to test it Gallows, remember to add the following results:

1) Succes rate of rank 1 combat char vs. maybe an orc/goblin, using one defence.

1a) % chance of 3 succes' in above scenario.

2) Succes rate of rank 3 vs. black orc using 1 improved defence.

2a) Again also include 3 succes' and maybe also boons, and number of boons of star both means training number of challenges and banes (seeing as it's often the boons that kills people...).

The great thing about it is that it won't affect boons in any way.

I'll test for a rank 1 character vs. an easy creature and a rank 3 character against a troll or something like that.

For monsters with more than 3 expertise I think I would limit it to 3 extra challenges or perhaps dicide the monsters expertise by 2 and round up.. Some monsters have 9 expertise, so that would be quite insane... but still I'll test it.

Gallows said:

But you should also test it with an action that has 1 purple dice allready, and not just with standard melee strike.

Spivo said:

I will post results for pools with 1-5 challenge dice to take into account any actions giving an extra challenge die.

For the moment, the game is very much designed for rank 1-2 characters, including the adventures.

The errata states that future action cards will require the Dodge, Parry and Block specialisations. Those cards will probably be advanced cards available to high level characters.

Also, hitting has been made a lot easier than previous editions, the ability to be good at it allowing for more daring and difficult actions. As it is, it's easy to hit, but it's not that easy to wound, considering the high amounts of soak readily available. it definitely looks like a design choice.

I however am very interested to see what you get to. I definitely think that higher levels of the "defensive skills" (resilience, weapon skill, coordination, guile) should be taken into account somehow in the being harder to hit part.

I've done a bit of thinking and here's a refinement of the idea: (in our house rules the chaos star always counts as an additional challenge symbol). Keeping the idea that no dice can be added, because that can easily screw up bane/boon balance.

• Subtract one success for each improved defense card used or in effect against the attack (only these defense cards give the bonus: Improved Parry, Improved Dodge, Improved Block, Improved guarded position.)
  
• In combat the chaos star counts as a number of challenges equal to the targets rank (For NPCs use the threat level to give them a rank or give your NPCs whatever rank fits their power.)

I think that is all that is needed to balance defence. I can't make any statistics on this as I would have to do it manually. The dice roller I normally use dowsn't have any visible statistics on the number of successes rolled.

When omens of war arrives FFG may present us with a solution to this issue as the supplement is based on combat and warfare.

For NPCs, I would not suggest using Threat. Instead, I would suggest using their (E)xpertise pool value (which essentially represents their skill/training), with a minimum of 1.

If you're making Chaos Star challenges count as multiple challenges, I don't think you need the first option for subtracting successes using Improved versions of Defense. They already add a challenge die, which has the possibility for plenty of extra challenges.

dvang said:

Yeah I'm thinking the same... that it's best just to go with one of the options.

The reason for not using expertise is that it's training. But some vicious creature with no training at all could just as well have great defense, reacting on instincts. Some entries of tough monsters have only 1 expertise for instance. I wouldn't use threat, but perhaps threat divided by 2 to get a general idea of the rank.

It's a delicate balance.

On one hand I want defences to be better, but I don't want it to be harder to hit static targets (you have to defend to decrease chance to be hit).

I also don't want actions that has +1 purple dice, to become increasingly harder when you defend. And if you chose to make stars count for even more, you make these actions even harder.

So while Star = Star+challenge, is okay raising this when you use a defence makes some actions extremely hard to perform.

So for me there's really only two ways to solve the "attack is to good" problem, and that's either by adding more dice (purple/black), or by saying that when you use a defence you add automatic challenges to the result. The advantage of the former is that you keep combat up to chances, and for the later is simplicity and few dice, and also that you don't tamper with boons/banes. Must say I like the way of adding automatic challenges, because it's very simple.

Yeah I think I am going to go with the simple one automatic challenge when you use an improved defense card. A challenge die only has 50% chance of getting one or two challenges (or 62.5% with our house rule), so giving an active defense card an automatic challenge is a good improvement. It does not make individual hits much less lethal though, because usually the most nasty effects come from 3 successes and 2 boons. But it does make it more likely that you will miss when someone is defending.

Gallows said:

So will you say:

Improved Parry, 1 train in weaponskill = 1 Purple dice

Improved parry, 2 train in weaponskill = 1 purple dice + 1 automatic challenge

Improved parry, 2 train in weaponskill + Improved dodge, 2 train in coordination = 2 purple dice + 2 automatic challenges.

???

I think the above would be pretty good, and still be balancing to actions that has more purple dice to begin with.

If you're super humanly trained (3 in the 3 defence modifiers, and 3 improved), you get 3 purple dice and 6 automatic challenges to throw at one attack, which should be enough to warp of even the most persistant deamon, the turn after though... splat...

Of course keeping in Chaos star = 1 star (or bane) + 1 challenge.

Think this scales very well actually.

I might even allow for specs to add to this to, but it has to be fairly specific, like block missiles/beasts/melee weapons.

Or just let specs be dodge, parry, block, and have it add a misfortune dice "only".

For npc's/monsters I think I'll just divide the expertice or challenge rating by 3, and say the npc/monster uses one defence each turn.

Spivo said:

6 automatic challenges will be too much I think. I did 100 manual rolls with a rank 3 character against 3 improved defence cards. I tried first without automatic challenges and then with 3 automatic challenges and it made a huge difference in the success rate. I think 6 challenges may be too much, but of course that would mean only little defense next rounds (some cards allow defenses to be refreshed).

Lets see a group of four. If three are melee focused and in the same engagement, then one could use guarded position each turn and simply rely on riposte and counterblow for damage. This would give all enemies in the engagement an extra purple and an automatic challenge against those three.

But I like the idea though. This is the progression you want right?

Improved defense (1 skill rank in related skill) = 1 challenge die

Improved defense + 2 skill ranks in related skill = 1 challenge die + 1 automatic challenge

Improved defense + 3 skill ranks in related skill = 1 challenge die + 2 automatic challenges

Over the top I think, because on top of these defense cards there are some of the iron breaker flavoured cards that add lots of black dice. Also players can support each other with improved guarded position. I would rather give some incentive to use improved guarded position more in groups (it gives all allies in the engagement defense dice).

How about this:

Improved defense (1 skill rank in related skill) = 1 challenge die

Improved defense + 2 skill ranks in related skill = 1 challenge die + 1 automatic challenge

Improved defense + 3 skill ranks in related skill = 1 challenge die + 2 automatic challenges for the first defense card and +1 for the rest against one attack

This would give a max of 4 automatic challenges instead of 6 (or 5 if someone is using improved guarded position). This wouldn't be a huge difference if the rank 3 warrior blows all defense cards against one attack, but if he spreads them out over three attacks he would still get 6 total automatic challenges.

It's a very delicate balance and I'll have to find some way to do some rough math to get some idea about how it balances out from 1-6 automatic challenges

Did 100 rolls with the following dice pool

6 Characteristic dice

2 Reckless dice

2 Expertise dice

2 fortune dice

3 misfortune dice

4 challenge dice

The normal chance to hit for that huge beast would be about 70%

Considering the rule of 3 automatic challenges I got 30 hits on 100 rolls

It's quite an impact and considering this monster is a Giant with weapon skill trained and adding an expertise die I think 6 automatic challenges will be way over the top. In fact I only had 4 hits out of 100 with 7+ successes.

I have to confess I do play another homemade game based on success on dices. Difficulty is not made with another dice, but with subtracted successes. And it is VERY effective. The "positive dices" roll has enough randomization. Flat cross swords should be really a good thing.

if someone is interested, my rpg is written in french, 120p full color for 19,90 euros OR FREE pdf download.

http://amizia3.free.fr

willmanx said:

I don't understand a word french (well a few words I picked up during a summer romance many years ago... not sure how much was actual words though )

But it does look great! Tried to see what the basic system was, but had to give up. Guess it's something with six sided dice pools, a target number and then you remove successes according to the difficulty (0-3). Great work man, you have put some work into that.

Yep, you fully understood the system. Successes on 4,5,6. 6 is like a Hammer+. Having a majority of 1 is a fumble (the more the dices, the less the fumbles). The number of successes remaining represents the "scale" of success : 1) success almost failed, 2) regular success, 3) great success, 4) heroic success. You adapt description and effect to that.

Then you should check the other original stuff of staff system p.31 : table of combat and p.42 table of Magic. In these domains, you PHYSICALLY put your successed dices on differents effects... attack/disarm/grapple/feint/pushback/stun, and for magic zone/targets/duration/effect/damage/heal/bonus/penalty/etc. It is very effective.

To talk about WFRP3 back : you might use a higher flat combat difficulty considering the opponent's dangerosity.... ie : 0d snotling, 1d goblins, 2d orc, 3d black orc, 4d for ubermegaamazingheroicorc.

How about simply making combat opposed tests vs flat tests?

Or making them opposed when an active defense is used?

Seems to me it might solve all the issues at once.

WS or BS vs. the used active defense based skill (WS, CO, RE, GU).

LordoftheMilk said:

Problem with that is that some big creatures would still have 1d checks and some even 0d checks. It would scale even more towards favoring attacking and having high characteristics.

The only time an NPC would be a 0d to be hit is if the NPC has a 2 in a stat (and PC >= 4), or the PC has a stat of 6 (and NPC <= 3). Most "big" NPCs wont' have a 2 stat. Heck, most "big" NPCs won't have a 3 stat. Not saying you're wrong that opposed tests might not "fix" everything, just saying a 0d test for PCs to hit any big monsters will be very rare, and 1d will be uncommon. Most "big" monsters, in fact, will never be attacked with less than 2d, since their base stat (St usually) will be 7 or more, and PCs can't get a 7 in a stat.

dvang said:

It was the other way around. A giant with strenght 8 vs an average strenght 3 player. I am thinking it will be much too hard on players.