I noticed something funny. I am currently running a WFRPG 3e game. Before that I was running a D&D 4e game. D&D 4e is supposed to be very balanced. And, when it comes to editions of D&D, it is probably the most balanced version of the game I have played (I have played every edition since 2e). However, it still isn't balanced all that well. There are a few classes that totally suck, a few that are really great, but most importantly, system mastery can allow one to create a character that drastically outperforms other characters. And, everyone in the party pretty much has to be the same level. Characters of different levels get drastically better/worse fairly quickly (due to the way the system is designed, and how important higher attack bonuses and defense values are).

Now, WFRPG 3e isn't really designed around making everyone balanced in every area of the game (and seems to be designed more along the lines of trying to make sure that all characters can meaningfully contribute to the parties overall actions as opposed to every type of action). However, characters with more/less advances don't end up having nearly as much difference between them as different level characters in D&D. In fact, the difference in power of the professions isn't even as drastic as the potential difference in power of some of the classes in D&D. About the only thing that really does result in a drastic power difference in WFRPG, as far as I can tell (and maybe I am wrong, and have not played this game long enough to see the sort of power disparity that can potentially arise), is a large disparity between stats, but everyone ends up having a similar stat value overall (because you start with pretty much the same number of starting points)...

Thoughts?

Our group has found the same thing. The primary difference between characters of different Ranks is the number of options they have at their disposal. Although to be fair no one in our group has been willing to spend the high number of points to increase any of their Characteristics. The biggest difference I've seen are with characters using a skill in which they have a second (or more) Expertise die. That really seems to make a difference in our game.

On the balance among PC's, at 30 or so advances with 4 players no one feels "left out" so far.

I have had most players raising stats, whether shoring up initial "dump stats" after deciding it's not so nice having too few dice in (pick any) or aiming for a 6 in a stat (elf who started out with 5 Ag, now 6 and quite deadly with his bow).

Some of my players complain that a combat character kills NPCs way too quick. Personally I like that it's quick and dirty and I don't mind the players killing NPCs in one shot (We're talking about feathered fiends with 12 HP and soak 4 = 17 damage to kill them). It only happened once though, but most of them went down in 2-3 hits. I find this reasonable. The feathered fiends couldn't hit the players however. With improved guarded position on and a single basic defense card, the feathered fiends couldn't hit with their three dice (1 blue + 1 red + 1 green). I think the 8 fiends only hit once in about 20 attempts.

The coloured fiends with just +2 wounds, +1 defense and +1 soak were much harder. They also had some nasty spells, so that made them harder too. At rank 1 just a few more hp, soak and defense actually matters. Plus the action cards the NPCs have are VERY important in terms of balance.

A troll slayer can at rank three do 30+ damage with little trouble however. That will kill most NPCs in one hit.

Gallows said:

I suppose he / she should be able to though right? They are supposed to be nuts beserker dwarves.

mighty-zoltan said:

I don't disagree really. I just want other opinions

I agree in a general sense. Then again, I think part of the reason is a) a relatively shallow power-progression dynamic (this is absolutely a good thing IMHO) and b) the general lethality of Warhammer making combat...any combat...a very risky proposition for all parties. This, in turn, means that players (and their PCs) often try to find non-combat solutions to problems which results in greater emphasis upon a variety of skills, tactics and character types. Thus, balance is achieved by virtue of the fact that there are no "magic bullets" in this game. There are no "always win" cards because there is no single solution to every problem. I like it that way!

In D&D4E (meaning no offense to anyone who likes the game), a lot of the rules and character elements are centered around "how to be good at killing things". This sends the message that the most emphasized problem-solving technique is combat. To that end, 4E focuses most of its efforts on balancing that aspect of the game.

In WFRP3e (or any edition, for that matter), this isn't the case. Combat is no more desirable as a problem-solver than any other method and often ends in less-than-desirable results.

Sun Boy you make a good point.

I have found combat to be very deadly on both sides. Whether its PC's or NPC's getting smacked with a weapon doing crit damage is going to hurt bad, PC or NPC.

One of my players noted, "Warhammer is a system that wants to kill the party". While funny, I don't believe its that extreme, but it is certainly easier for someone to be knocked out than in other systems, and I have a higher death to session ratio in WH, than other systems I've run.

I usually say, particularly when encounter other civilized npc, and when rolling for initiative, "An encounter can either be combative or social. Just because we're rolling initiative doesn't mean its time for a fight. Its your choice" This has been helpful, particularly with my players most familiar with D&D. With more play, the parties have been less quick to fight.

Although, one of my groups is still a bit hack-n-slash and I try to create encounters suited for style.

This is just a good reminder that everybody would do well to put character replacement rules in their house rulebook. We require players to keep a back-up character handy.

I have no qualms about killing PCs, but we've not had any deaths yet (TGS was evidently too easy for them

Seriously though: prep your players mentally for how to replace their old character. It will keep any guilt off your head and bad feelings and tantrums from them

jh

Emirikol said:

YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!!!

We've had near-TPU's but no TPK's in both campaigns so far.

This current party had a really easy time with TGS and it's because I'm using the henchmen rules. I've found that the henchmen rules are less dangerous than just having a weak, 3-wound peon who get's a regular attack. Min 1 damage, 3x a round adds up whereas henchmen otherwise are really just a waste of time.

I'm planning on running With a Little Help from my Friends again and that one is perfect for NOT using henchmen. SPOILERS: being in the house, surrounded all sides by attacks can drop a non-ironbreaker pretty quick.

jh