I have found that combat is largely geared to favor the attacker, be that the PC's or the NPC's, and always thought it strange that a combat roll is considered an easy task. I've played around with replica weapons and find it much harder than your average movie fight scene or video game combat to land a significant blow on a wary opponent. So I've gone about looking into ways to make the battles seem more realistic, harder for the attacker if you will. However my quandary lies in me not knowing if by increasing the combat rolls challenge rating am I breaking the game.

For a while I was having the players roll versus checks, so if the Ironbreaker was making an attack against a lithe and agile gobbo, then it would be the Iron Breakers Weapon Skill (plus modifiers) opposed to the target gobbos agility. but then I quickly realized that the game was not designed with this in mind, so I moved to bumping the challenge of attacking to normal difficulty, which seems much more realistic. I have yet to find a real problem with it but due to my lack consistent player involvement I've really not put it through the ringer of play testing.

I'd really like to hear the communities thoughts on this. Have any of you thought of doing something similar? Do you think its a bad idea to mess with a core mechanic like that? Did I blow your mind when you realized that it does takes skill to land a combat blow and therefore it makes no sense to have a combat check be only an easy challenge rating?

Let me know

I have no idea if you would be breaking combat, as i have not spent any time studying the math behind the 3E dice pool machanic yet, but i have seen simular posts in the house rules forum, i think Gallows had some ideas on improving defences to make landing blows more difficult especially at higher ranks.

Personally i would be inclinded to wait for Omens of War before playing with the core system as i think it quite likely this will be addressed. also you have to remember that a combat dice roll represents a short series of blows or exchanges, in which case a high hit chance is likely. I spent a few years fencing, and it is pretty easy to get a hit in with a very rapid exchange over the course of thirty seconds to a min. I'm not sure how shields and heavier weaponary would work, but from when i fought with rapiers its pretty easy.

Just my thoughts. Crimsonsun.

Edit: I was also just thinking that it would vary dependant on combat situation, two dualing characters have time to watch and study each other and plenty of space to dodge and manover, while when in the press of melee against a throng of goblins with your allies at your side, complex defence goes out of the window, as it turns more into a test of stamina with controlled thrusts and stabs. Ablity would help you by knowing keep your weapons centralised and in small short arcs, but in that sort of combat stamina and luck and knowing how to work in a coordinated effort is your only real defence. sorry for the tangent.

The Strolling Bones said:

Introducing more dice may upset the boon/bane balance that is spot on in RAW. It will also lead to more chaos stars, which is a problem for some cards.

What I have done is to make improved defence cards better. On top of adding a purple die to the enemys pool, he also has to subtract one success for each defence card used. This removes successes and reduces the overall chance of hitting, without removing boons or adding chaos stars. Check my house rules for more info.

Here is some additional discussion on the Edge of Night (link included not to threadcap): www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp

jh

I agree the system allows for very frequent damage. I would prolly not consider bumping it up to average difficulty though, since this would really drag out combat, and i prefer to keep combat fairly quick if possible and let the plot progress to keep the momentum of the story.

But if your group really enjoy dwelling into the combat maybe average combat checks could be a good idea.

As alternative i have some suggestions you could also consider:

Using the agression dice pool for defence instead of offence would drag out combat a bit, but would ensure it would not go on forever.

You could also consider basing the difficulty like an oposed skill check instead. That would drag out combat against harder oponents but speed up against weaker ones (but it may throw off the balance a lot)

Thirdly you could also consider putting more emphasis on the story telling around combat in that a hit from a dice pool could be told in terms of several block, parries and hits on the armor that just wears down the oponent, keeping in mind that wounds are not nessesarily deep cuts and lost limbs, but rather wear and tear on the combatants. Then instead emphasis the critical wounds as actual hits in your story telling.

Before saying it's to easy to hit in combat, one has to remember that a round of combat is not a strike from each combatants, but several swings.

And it is a lot easier to hit people with weapons, than to avoid getting hi, also in real-life.

Finally, remember that while you may hit someone, it usually takes several hits to kill someone. In real-life a solid hit, one that isn't slowed, will kill people.

But... that said, I think the problem isn't with the hit/passive defence mechanism, but in the hit vs. active defence mechanism. Using active defences (reactions) doesn't scale enough. Basically, active defences peak at rank 1-2 (Improved defences), while attacks will continue to increase (skill peaking at rank 3, and stats at rank 4 or so). What is needed are reactions that peak at rank 3+, something like "perfected parry" etc...

Spivo said:

those are both complex and interesting ideas. I liked the way second edition's characters missed more than hitted, but I would be careful about mixing with the system integrity. the thing about extra chaos stars is the point, I guess: 3th ed does not base the results just in missing or hitting, but in how it occurs.

the need for extra success seems to be a good idea. you could translate it for adding challenges (the crossed sword symbol) as difficulty. also, adding misfortune for extra difficulty, though that would mean banes as often as misses.

I would increase the difficulty of spells as well. just for reality harmony. already spells being simple tests as a start upsets me a little (magical darts hits way too much, even if that's the whole point of this spell).

but I also completely agree with spivo regarding active defences. I don't like this D&D feel where characters improve their attacking skills endelessly, but not their defences. it seems to assume that they'll get magically improved armour, if not they simply won't be able to survive for long. I find it does not fit well in the Warhammer World - at least the way I picture it in my head.

anyway, I would like to see further game testing on it.

but to me and my group, I guess will just move along with the system, trying to embrace it's quirks on our roleplaying. the "combat is deadly" perspective that spivo says.