Hello,

I presonally like the idea of the mechanics of the opposed test, but I have the impression it won't work when two high skilled contendants are opposed.

Since me and my party are quite new in the 3rd edition system, I have not myself the oportunity to face the situation. Nonetheless, here is my point.

The chances of success in an opposed test improve dramatically as the skill of the active participant improves, while from my point of view it should always be related to the ratio between the two skills, the one from the active character and the one of the passive character.

Let's suppose that a thief with Ag4 tries to sneak pass a guard with Int4. Supose that the thief has trained one level on stealth and he has one fortune die in Ag, let's also supose he is one level deep in conservative stance. At the same time the guard has trained one level on Observation and the GM decides to spend on misfortune die from the Cunning dice pool of the guard. The dice pool will be then three characteristic dice, one conservative stance dice, one fortune dice, one expertise dice, two challenge dice and two misfortune dice. With this pool the success chances of the opposed test are roughly 33%.

Let's suppose now that the same two characters meet years later, when both of them are much more experienced. Now the thief has Ag6, three fortune dice in Ag, three trained levels on stealth and he is 3 levels deep in conservative stance. At the same time, the guard has Int6, three trained levels of Observation etc...The GM decides to spend 3 extra misfortune dices comming from the Cunning dice pool of the guard. The total dice pool will be composed of three characteristic dice, three conservative stance dice, three fortune dice, three expertise dice, two challenge dice and four misfortune dice. With this pool, the success chances of the opposed test are more than 90%.

To mee it looks very wierd! I am doing something wrong? Can anyone give to me a valid interpretation of this? Or a good house rule to correct it?

Thank you!

Have them both roll dice separately, each adding in black dice to oppose each other as desired (via action cards or use of A/C/E).

If both succeed (highly likely), then whoever rolls more successes wins the contest. If there is a tie, break the tie with boons. If there is still a tie, the contest is a draw.

Indeed that's unfair and odd. When you oppose 2 characters with the same characteristics, it's easier to beat his opponent when their stat are high.

Here's our BALANCED HOUSERULE FOR OPPOSED CHECK : roll a number of challenge dices equal to the passive character's characteristic minus 2.

If your opponent's tested characteristic is 1, it's 1-2 = 0d simple check.

If your opponent's tested characteristic is 2, it's 2-2 = 0d simple check.

If your opponent's tested characteristic is 3, it's 3-2 = 1d easy check.

If your opponent's tested characteristic is 4, it's a 4-2 = 2d average check.

If your opponent's tested characteristic is 5, it's a 5-2 = 3d difficult check.

If your opponent's tested characteristic is 6, it's a 6-2, so a 4d daunting check.

Try it, test it, you'll appreciate

I agree that it seems unfair, and in a way it is. But remember that it's (almost) always the players rolling the opposed checks, except in combat.

Example:
If a player attempts to sneak past a guard, opposed check where the player rolls stealth vs. observation.
If a player attempts to spot a sneaking NPC, opposed check where the player rolls observation vs. stealth.

In a way, this makes the PC's succeed more on their opposed checks and well, for me that's ok.

Yepesnopes said:

I also found myself uneasy with the standard difficulty scaling for opposed checks. To address this, I've actually been using a system similar to what Willmanx posted above but in my house rule is:

Challenge Dice = [Opposing Characteristic] - 1

Thus, if you are opposed by a Characteristic of 4, the difficulty would start with 3 Challenge dice. I continue to apply Misfortune dice for the opponent's skill training, etc as normal.

I've plotted the statistics of this method out and tested them through a few sessions and find that I like the results. What ends up happening is that contests at the "lower end" of the scale are not so miserably difficult for the acting character and the "higher end" is regined it a good bit to prevent the acting character from being so ridiculously favored at higher character Ranks. In short, it brings the difficulty scaling to a much more even temper.

First - You should compare the same stance depth, since in all but extreme situations (going more than 3 into a stance) it doesn't reflect any particular skill at a higher rank. You should also keep things even by suggesting that the guard also has 3 fortune dice in INT. You are inherently giving the thief an advantage, because he has gained 3 fortune dice in Agi, while the poor guard has no such gain (not that as it currently stands those fortune dice would help, but it's the premise)

Now, there are essentially two differences that factor into the active character's favor:
1) Training in the active character's Stealth counts greater than the training for the Defending character's skill. In this case, Stealth provides Expertise dice, while Observation only provides misfortune dice.
2) Fortune dice bought for a characteristic do not help the defending character. So, the guard having 3 fortune dice in Int, does not get additional negative dice thrown into the dice pool.

If, as a GM, you want a true equality opposed test ... I would suggest trying a couple options:
1) Training and characteristic fortune cancel each other out. Have training levels between the two opponents cancel each other out. Whichever side has more training gains the difference in number of dice in either Expertise or Misfortune (or potentially add a challenge die). Also have characteristic fortune dice cancel each other out, with excess adding either fortune or misfortune.
2) Add misfortune for both the defender's training as well as the defender's characteristic fortune. This will lead to some pretty large pools, though. You might also want to consider changing X misfortune into a challenge die. Maybe 3 misfortune?
3) Have each side roll a test based on their own dice pool, and whichever achieves more successes 'wins'. So, the thief gets his roll with the normal listed dice. Then, the guard gets an Observation roll using his intelligence, and opposed by the thief's Agi.

#1 is a fairly fast solution, that also helps to keep dice pools down. It does remove some of the fun dice (like expertise), though.
#3 is probably a better solution, but it does slow the game down.

I quit that system. I just go with whomever gets more successes wins.

jh

Thaks for the feedback guys!

I like the suggested house rules that you posted, I will try to test some of them before choosing one. In any case I will email the fantasy flight games to know if they have in mind updating this rule officialy any time. To me WFRP 3rd ed is a great game, but this rule of opposing tests is just a failure, and for what I see in the forums, many others have a similar feeling.

Yepesnopes said:

If an average thief tries to silently sneak past an average guard there's a chance the guard will notice him. If a good thief tried to sneak past a good guard why should the chances of him noticing be the same ? If the thief manages to be entirely silent then it doesn't matter how good the guard is, he won't hear him.

You could say that a hapless con artist is not going to be very convincing if he were to try to con an averagely wary customer, but a really good con artist might be easily able to convince even a guarded and acutely aware customer. If the con artist manages to be entirely convincing, it doesn't matter how good the customer is at spotting dubious practice.

You could say that with many activities the importance of the skill or competency of the active protagonist out weighs that of the more passive, responding 'defender.'

Of course that might not always be the case, and so it's really up to the GM when to make these sorts of opposed tests in place of the more balanced competitive tests.

Personally I don't find anything odd about the notion of the active skill often outweighing the passive skill. But it is one of those RPG conventions, generally, that 4 points in blah skill minus 4 points in blah defence equals 0. There's nothing particularly 'realistic' about that either, if you think about it.

monkeylite said:

I disagree. A good guard may very well have better hearing. Or he may be more aware of the places someone might go to sneak. His skill at finding a thief may very well be higher. A good guard will know where to look, what to watch for. He may pay more attention to the finer details, sounds, sights, smells, etc.

You could say that a hapless con artist is not going to be very convincing if he were to try to con an averagely wary customer, but a really good con artist might be easily able to convince even a guarded and acutely aware customer. If the con artist manages to be entirely convincing, it doesn't matter how good the customer is at spotting dubious practice.

Again, how so?

A con artist would be more likely to try to con the easier of the two targets BECAUSE it reduces the chance of someone seeing though his con.

I'm not making any point regarding the topic but I do disagree with these two examples.