The basic concept in WFRP3 is that combat involves participants lunging back and forth, striking and moving about. Each melee combat attack represents several attacks. Meanwhile, ranged combat, by virtue of it's nature and provided there are no special weapons or actions being used, is one shot per round, generally targetting the very people who are jumping back and forth, striking and fighting.

But, in both cases, the difficulty to hit is 1 challenge die. Does that make sense to you?

Okay, you say, it's all about game balance. Sure, I can understand game balance, but even within the game is there really balance? If I am in melee combat, my opponents have an unmodified 1 challenge die chance of hitting me. I am in immediate risk, but if I am shooting from a distance, my only real danger is other people shooting from a distance. I have the safety of being out of range of the melee combat (generally).

Therefore the following houserule:

• The default difficulty for ranged combat is Average (2d), unless you are firing at an immobile target (such as another ranged attacker), in which case the default difficulty is Easy (1d). Range modifiers remain unchanged.

By making this change, it makes it harder for those archers and ranged attackers to deal damage (i.e. hit) melee fighters who are taking the risk of being in that direct combat, but still keeps it equally dangerous for the archers to hit each other. I think it actually does more to preserve game balance.

Any thoughts?

Waxfire

do what works for you.

i don't bother with firm rules like the one you describe. the RAW cover this with the flexibility of the misfortune and fortune dice and the descriptions of the difficulties level.

target is moving misfortune dice

target is engaged with ally add another challenge dice, chaos star may hit the ally if i feel like it adds something to encounter, banes and the ally suffers the exposed condition for 2 rounds and an increase in party tension.

target is a large ogre (fortune) running (challenge dice) through rain (misfortune) jumping over low stone walls (misfortune) while carrying an innocent villager (challenge to avoid) but is oblivious to the shooter (fortune).

I generally use misfortune dice for everything, moving target = 1-2 misfortune (depending on speed), engaged with allies who you have to take care not to hit = 1-2 misfortune dice (depending on which group is the largest), targets are behind obstacles = 1-3 misfortune (depending on if it's bushes, trees, walls, how much cover they have). And there are other modifiers, like weather (rain, fog, wind) etc. that can be applied to shooting.

So a shooter might get a quite high number of misfortune dice on their roll and generally gets at least one or two (plus armour defence of course). The melee fighters on the other hand doesn't have to bother with these things very much (generally), so in a way I think it balances it out.

For ranged attacks targeting a foe who is engaged with an ally, consider the Action Card " Threading the Needle ".

This allows attacking a foe engaged with ally at cost of two misfortune dice (remove one for each prepare manoeuvre). Base success normal damage, 2 success give bonus to damage per ally engaged (given a typical ranged attack is +2 damage at 3 successes, this is not so much better).

So, to me someone trying to shoot at a foe engaged with ally should be facing similar but worse conditions (if they're not using this action). This is under general principle that doing something covered by an action card without it should often be possible but not as easy/effective.

I make it three misfortune dice, with same remove one for each prepare, but add that a Chaos star means you accidentally hit the ally (something the Action card above doesn't risk).

Generally, you can ensure ranged attacks aren't so risk free damage inflicters with a few strategies. As said, surely anyone at "range" is seeking some cover behind a corner or tree etc. for one or two misfortune dice to the attack etc.

One tactic I don't see mentioned so often is giving the important foes aides who do "Guarded Position" to improve their boss's defence by one or two misfortune dice. Since there's nothing against these stacking, this can result in some impressive misfortune dice pools (e.g., two henchmen groups are screening their boss - say vs a 3 player group, so each makes the Discipline check +2 fortune dice to see how well they do - anywhere from 0 to 4 misfortune dice) - this has the added boon effect of letting the boss NPC recharge his nasty or defences actions faster so he's Dodging etc. more often.

Rob

valvorik said:

what you describe brings me to my one area of concern with WFRP3.

the rules encourage the use of the challenge and fortune/misfortune dice to cover the myriad of scenarios that can come up in an rpg, however it is impossible to be familiar with all the action cards to know that there is an action card to cover the specific scenario you have encountered.

Yup, I hear you. I had a different houserule about shooting into melee until I read the Threading the Needle action card and revised it. It's good to review action cards for this reason. Many are speciality actions etc. but some like Threading the Needle or Grapple are actions you can expect to come up in normal play.

Just use cover. If you're running straight at someone with a longbow, you're asking for it. Once you do get close a ranged focused person will be in trouble as many ranged attacks can't be used in melee. On top of that I give an extra challenge die to ranged attacks if you're engaged - unless you're using a pistol.

There is nothing preventing people from using perform a stunt to make themselves harder to hit (imposing misfortune dice or challenge dice). At the same time you can block and dodge ranged attacks. Someone using dodge and block plus perform a stunt to avoid getting hit will be a tough target.

How about three characters using a shield wall tactic while moving forward. Everyone using guarded position. That's potentially three extra challenge dice.

I think the system works perfectly, but ignoring an archer is deadly and it should be.

Thank you for the comments everyone, I still feel a little uncomfortable with the differences between the two types of combat not having a set difference, but given all the modifiers available, I suppose that does make more sense.