It's not really balance that's important; it's niche protection. If your character is supposed to be the party Face-man, and another character just happens to be better at it, it's not going to be as fun for the first player.

Not necessarily. It depends on the characters and their personalities. Two characters might be socially oriented, but one is a noble and the other is an agitator. While one might be technically more eloquent/better than the other, different settings will make them better or worse than the other player. A noble, even with a lower Fel, will (if the GM is running it properly) have better luck socializing in a formal party amongst other nobility than a commoner Agitator. Even if they aren't *better*, it's a roleplaying game so the noble might be able to use their background to gain other benefits/information that the commoner agitator will. So, having a "lower" ability does not preclude having fun or being useful to the group, or filling a niche. If the group is having problems with this sort of thing, then I would suggest part of the problem is that the players made two characters that were so similar they cannot be played differently, and one of them should probably go into another career that provides unique "niche" skills to the group. I don't believe this is the fault of the game. It's up to the players (and the GM to a limited extent) to make their PCs unique.

@YokuniCat

Swordmasters can do some damage, but everyone trained in combat is a great use in a fight. The majority of his bonuses come from the "Way" action cards. Why does the Wardancer need to do the most damage, though? That's like saying the Wardancer, or SM, is upset because they cannot soak as much damage as the Ironbreaker, or that the Ironbreaker is upset that they cannot do as much damage as the SM. The Wardancer is a lightly armed and armored fighter. Their dance cards (if she's using them) are not aimed at maximizing damage. Anyway, unless you as the GM have house ruled and restricted action cards based on traits, the Wardancer can theoretically do nearly as much damage as the SM. Assume they buy the same stats, and the same action cards. The difference between the two characters is really just the GSoH abilities. +[W] and the ability to choose between two criticals. If the Wardancer picks up a masterwork or magical weapon, that offsets the +[W], leaving the difference as the critical ability. See? honestly, I think the biggest difference between various combat PCs are going to be the action cards they have selected. Some cards and combos do more damage than others.

My real point is, though, that not everyone will necessarily be the best at something. Yes, it is good to have a character be "best" at something. With all the options available, from actions to skills to talents, etc, that the fault seems to me to lie with the player and not the game if they aren't feeling special enough, though. They have not "designed" their PC (either with advances or background/personality) to be as unique as other people have. Talk with them. Ask them what they want their PC to do "best", or what sets their PC apart/above the others. Talk about how to make the PC unique enough to feel different/useful. Regarding your combat example, I would suggest your Wardancer, if she wants to do more damage, should look at the action cards she has bought and is using, as that is most likely where the "problem" is. She should look for more combos and synergy between cards, perhaps even acquiring ones similar to what the Swordmaster is using. Personally, I think a Wood Elf Wardancer inherently has some advantages outdoors and with skills to make her unique in other ways, and she shouldn't feel upset that the SM does more damage. <shrug>

I play in dvang's group, and we have the following careers:

Gambler (High Elf)

Swordmaster

Ironbreaker

Mystic (Reiklander)

Bounty Hunter (Reiklander)

We've had one serious combat scene to date, and the results were surprising. While the Swordmaster did a fair amount of damage and took a beating from a nasty daemon (and nearly died), the all-star player was our High Elf Gambler. She has 5 agility and is armed with a longbow and rapier. She used her Rapid Fire and Nimble Strike cards to mop up a large number of cultists, and then saved our Bounty Hunter (who had passed out by that point) by giving him a healing draught.

To increase her chance of success in combat, the Gambler used her Jack of All Trades talent often, and when she blew one of her melee attacks she triggered her Gambler ability to re-roll her dice pool into a nice hit. So, a non-combat career ending up doing a significant amount of damage to the enemy. Our bounty hunter, using the Sniper Shot card, also played a key roll. Using his career ability, he named the evil cult leader as his "target" which allowed him to roll an extra expertise die, got a comet of Sigmar and did 18 damage in a single shot. He then proceeded to faint, but that's another story...

What's all this mean? I've found that it's the combination of action cards, talents, and career ability a player has chosen that have the most to do with a character's ability to inflict/sustain damage, rather than the career alone. For example, a human Mercenary can buy a greatweapon (which is arguably just as good as the Greatsword of Hoeth since it has a higher damage rating) and take all of the Way of the Sword cards. In that regard, he would be just like a Swordmaster, or perhaps even better since the Mercenary has a very nice career ability. It's also important to note how a player uses the abilities they have (i.e. activating cards and talents in a certain order to create superior combos), and how they take tactical advantage of the situation at hand.

As for the Ironbreaker, his armor is definitely tough, but there are ways around it (e.g. magic), and he doesn't have a more flexible career ability like our Bounty Hunter, Gambler and Mystic to use when in non-combat situations.

@YokuniCat

A final note - I've gone over the Wardancer career and it seems to be one of the more technical to play/optimize for combat. Maybe you should let your player know that she's chosen a career that is powerful yet requires a greater understanding of the game's mechanics to use to its full potential? If you haven't played much yet (and it sounds like you haven't), perhaps allow the Wardancer's player to reselect her action cards, talents and weapons? She may find that instead of trying to mimic the Swordmaster by swinging a huge, 7-foot monstrosity of a sword (which might be tough to do in a cramped building, alleyway, cavern or tangled forest), that a pair of fast-recharging long knives and some wicked ritual dance cards can be just what the party needs to succeed in a variety of combat scenes. It's not always about scoring the biggest hit.

Sincerely,

Yipe

P.S. This may be off topic a little, but maybe YokuniCat could post his group's Swordmaster and Wardancer builds in another thread and we could help "balance" them out, so to speak, or make some suggestions for the Wardancer player that get back to her Wood Elf roots (oh sorry, that was bad).

Quick question, how does magic bypass armor? I though an armor's soak value applied to both spells and weapon attacks. Am I wrong?

Cyber-Dave said:

No, I don't think you're wrong. My group doesn't have a spellcaster in it so I'm not entirely familiar with the rules for magic. When I wrote "magic", I meant indirect spells that targeted a different characteristic - such as Willpower/Discipline - to bypass the Ironbreaker's armor and take him out of the fight (by giving the dwarf extra stress, etc). Disease and corruption might also fall under this category. A crafty villain doesn't always have to wound an opponent in order to defeat them.

Mainly, I was saying that there's more than one way for the villains (and the GM) to combat a high-armor character like the Ironbreaker, you just have to be creative, employ indirect means to target a character's weaknesses, and don't forget to use the scenery. For example, what happens when a crucial battle takes place in water that's waist deep, and has hidden pools that are over the dwarf's head? In this situation, a fighter with lightweight armor and easy-to-wield weapons like the Wardancer would be at a big advantage.

Balance or not.

This question comes often in threads and I think it is slightly overrated as a design problem to look after.

I'm not saying it's not fun to read or write about, though !

Why am I saying this ? Because in effect, when we play, the actual roles characters represent do more to balance or unbalance any PC group than just mechanics. For example, if some player decided to play a peasant in a courtly intrigue AND that the GM didn't make any special efforts to give some cool scenes to his character, then in all probability, the said character will be next to useless and the player quite frustrated. Even if he somehow owns a Gromril armour.

If you consider the flip side of the career cards (the reverse where the fluff is) to evaluate balance, then I might agree a bit more about the use of this discussion. That is what really makes WFRP a rpg in a class of its own. The flip side. The fluff. It describes quite precisely how your character is bound to interact with the setting in any typical situation. That has an enormous impact on game play. Much more than a 5 in Str, IMO.

Example, the Priest. Even a weakling priest of Ranald that has a phobia of mice and a fear of heights will be a force to reckon with. His underworld contacts, the sympathy he gets from the brass section of the population, the secret infos he might more easily come by...

So if you want to talk balance, I'd talk about the social power of careers before any stats. How does the commoner career fare in a typical group, for example ? Or the scribe ? How can you keep these characters in the spotlight ? How can they be important to the story ? Those are major caveats, more so than comparing the Wardancer and the Swordmaster, IMO.

(The wardancer is a very hard career to master because of the complicated Action cards it uses. And in the end, the wardancer is about surprise attacks, flurry of blows and retreat... not the typical soldier...)

My conclusion is that as GM, I've had much more problems "balancing" the social/setting impact of careers than the mechanical aspect of them.

Luckily, I have players that really share the spotlight actively and also that do not all want to be "leaders" or "heroes". Some of them actually like playing sidekicks, comic relief and such, with of course all lot of impact on the story... sometimes in catastrophic ways !

Cyber-Dave said:

The rule of thumb:

- If the spell does "damage", it is affected by soak unless it says otherwise.

- If the spell does "wounds", soak has no effect unless it says otherwise.

GravitysAngel said:

And as an addendum to this there a few spells/blessings (Sword in the Dark from the Grey College for example) that inflict normal damage but ignore soak if you roll a comet. These spells are awesome.

No all careers are not balanced and they shouldn't be. The slayer is pgysically overpowered compared to a scholar, but the scholar is better at mental tasks. The bright mage is good both in combat and at mental tasks. Balance comes from the GM constructing the campaign to be a challenge for everyone.

Interesting to see everyones take on my party, I think will post their builds, it will be interesting I have work v shortly but I shall post them tonight when I get back.

Comments on what has been said since the last time (in no particular order)..

I let them play those careers because they want to have fun, most come from wfb and if we are all having fun... I do not believe in play it my way or you are playing it wrong my guys like to be heroic in a world where madness, plague, mutation and everyone is out to get you, is it canon ?? not sure, but I know we have fun playing. The WD comes from a DnD 3.5 background she just has to be the best at what she does, when she created the character I showed her the WE army guide she picked light weapons but now wants to go 2 handed because the swordmaster does more damage, she feels like she is not doing her part... and I understand that is one of the things she wants out of the game, so long as it is not disruptive to the other players or story as a whole I have no problem her playing what she wants and how she wants it...

The social setting is easy, simply because we have really one social character who is my son (he is playing a WE messenger). He shines in social settings and doesn't care about combat, the thrill of puzzle solving is his...

I personally am not hung up on the balance just found it interesting, last night the party were fighting in a wooded area and the WD shined ( a little favoritism, maybe but everyone still had fun) I find that letting my players run wild sometimes in a "fantasy" game is not such a bad thing. I understand it is gritty but why can't they be heroes ?

YokuniCat said:

In my oppinion, they can be heroes, the warhammer world is full of them. However they should not become super heroes. They could save people from danger, risk their lives for other and thus becoming heroes. What I think is mean by that they should not be heroes is that they should not be able to slay dragons or greater deamons alone (as is possible in D&D).

All fights should be dangerous (again, in D&D 10 goblins will not pose much of a threat when the characters in the party are level 20 for example), the risk of death, injury, desease, corruption and madness should be ever present. This makes it gritty, but they can be gritty heroes, risking all these horrible fates to save others.