I've been staring at this for about 2 hours while prepping for some convention scenarios. Why are we constantly tracking active defenses? Why not just make the highest one constant? Here's what we're now using:

New Stat:

Total Defense Score = Armor defense plus your highest active defense. It works against everyone who attacks you and there is no more tracking. . If something happens where that's no longer your highest defense (e.g. you lose your weapon and can't parry) then go down to the next highest deense.

I sat her trying to rationalize why I should keep tracking and I realized that this obsession with tracking stupid modifiers has got to stop. its slowing my games down and D&D-style accounting is the opposite of fun for me. So what if you parried 17 attacks. If the GM wasn't smart enough to try to disarm you, then you can keep parrying.

..and another thought: Block should have been built into having a shield in the first place!

Happy gaming!

jH

..

Death to recharges!

I'd still only allow you to use 1 active defense once outside your turn though.
You're targeted 3 times: you get to doge, block & parry.
4th time? Too bad.

If you want to, but I don't see the problem.

Also, the recharge mechanic is built into the game in several ways such that removing it from things "tilts" play. A delay roll in my game often means, oh oh, looks like you are still off balance a bit longer (couple of more recharge tokens on your Dodge) or taking you longer to get shield back into place (on Block) etc, there are other actions that involve effects that remove or add recharge tokens, a Rally Step is a "step closer to recharge".

I love the recharge mechanic as an alternative to "tracking effects lasting x many rounds" in what can be the same way but adding fluidity and as an alternative to "once an encounter or once a day" mechanics.

I also like it for the visuality of it, as GM I can see who has lots of stuff recharging and who doesn't to quickly judge "who's more exposed" for an attack etc.

I also like the tactical choice offered players to let them decide how to manage resources vs risk. Blow all your defence actions on this monster's attack and hope the rest attack someone else or save some or all for the attack by the most deadly monster. I've had mob of henchmen attack then the wargor champion reflecting "he sends mooks in to get your defences down and then comes in for kill" and hero has saved most defence actions for the wargor, "I keep my eye on the wargor and don't get my shield or blade out place for his attack".

Rob

be careful not to mess with core mechanics - recharge and adding or removal of counters is a core mechanic of many actions and conditions

Boehm: I find I must agree (see other thread)

Yeah. What may seem like a nifty idea when you just think of it suddenly breaks down when it gets some play time because it greatly influences how everything works.

I found that using the simple higher lethality rule from the GM handbook really ruined the game on so many fronts. It's simple... up to two extra damage, how much can it hurt, makes the game more exciting right? Well three extra damage after soak can be a great deal, plus suddenly some cards become pointless because it's better to just go after pure damage.

Be careful indeed. I am constantly factoring in all kinds of stuff when tweaking my house rules and considering suggestions from players. A house rules may ruin a particular aspect of the game.

By using your house rule, you remove the whole concept of building a defender who can recharge his active defences quicker. I like how getting outnumbered means you have to think about when to use defences.

I'm sure there's another way to manage active defenses that still translate well the rules as intended. I just can't take a grasp on it but if we dig a bit, with the help of each other, I'm sure there's a way. Let's just throw in some ideas to see if it gives a flash of insight to someone.

What about giving a flat bonus (1<b> or 2<b> if you're trained in weapon, resilience or coordination) to everyone who would normally gain of of the active defense cards and allowing those to use a manoeuver on their turn to gain another <b> (or 2?) until the start of their next turn (with a max of using 1 moaneuver for this, you can't use 2 or 3 manoeuvers and boost your defense more than a <b>) ?

Silverwave said:

But why? It isn't really more simple. Then you just need to track the number of maneuvers and for NPCs it'll be hell.

Don't need to track number of manoeuvers. It's either you use a manoeuver and get +1<b> (sort of fighting defensively) or you don't. This way you remove 3 cards from each player, meaning less stuff around at the table (there's already so much stuff around) and no fiddling with tokens.

Dear all

May be a bit off topic but...when you say that recharge tokens slow down your games, I don't really get it. I mean, players should take care of it! and it is done at the end of their turn, when everything is done! Moreover, they do not have to think at all, just remove one counter from every recharging card.

It is true that I have never tried to stop using recharge tokens, so I cannot compare, but I do not see why it can slow down your games.

Yepesnopes said:

Me neither. Even when running 10+ NPCs with their own cards it's **** simple. A NPC uses a card. I put tokens on it. End of the round I remove one from each. So simple and doesn't take long.

For me, the reason for not liking the recharge is this:

I don't like it It's too fiddly, too much like bookkeeping. And doesn't add anything to the game except a more granular control of when a recharge ends. Something that doesn't even feel right with the more abstract/story-telling system that WFRP3e is otherwise.
There are simpler ways of making certain actions unavailable to players, if only D&D 4e's at-will/encounter/daily actions. In fact, that one would have suited me just fine for WFRP. (But I can't adopt/adapt is without a lot of house-rule work because of the many abilities that interact with the recharging-tokens or count the recharging actions.)

In this particular case: the active defenses are really not that powerful that they need their own tracking. You should be able to use it each turn. If so, why add more tracking? But if you can use it each turn, you're going to. So why not make it an always-on effect indeed?

In general:

- fiddly players will shuffle the tokens around, put them on neat piles, take 1 off, when going from 5 to 4 will make 2 piles of 2 chits, etc. etc. I'd like their attention with the game instead of with the tools used by the mechanic. Each expansion has its own chits, so to keep track, you can pick only certain chits for fortune points, for initiative, for recharge, ... meaning you can't EVER find 4 of the same kind unless you separate them each in their own little pouch.
- Forgetful players will inevitably miss 1 ability or a recharge completely. Then a GM gets to make the call whether "missed is missed and nuts to you", even if that means the character can't make an important roll. If he does allow it because of the story, where do you draw the line for other occasions? Adds to the calls I have to make as a judge, takes away from time as camera (Thanks for that PDF link btw Universal Head, (Gamemastering) it's awesome
- All recharging cards are always put next to eachother, with chits on it, taking up more table-space. It's already at a premium, I would prefer the cards GONE if they're not usable anyway.
-As GM, I don't need another thing distracting me behind my screen (I could just do away with recharge there of course, but then what about duration effects)

Preferably, I would use a single central recharge system, that does not require any "per-turn" maintenance, and reclaims as much table-space as possible. But with the RAW action cards, I've not found anything usable just yet.

Nisses said:

I see what you mean, but for one reason or the other I do not have any of these problems in my games. It does not take my players attention to remove or add tokens at the end of their turn, we also do not care which token do we use, the green, the red or the one with the skull. Alternatively, I have players who use 6 sided die. I do not know, probably is a very personal approach that depends on the group of players and the GM.

Regarding that active defences are not that powerful...well a player can block, parry and dodge a single attack which means that added difficulty can go as high as 6 misfortune and if he has the 3 improved defenses it can go as high as 3 challenge die. I think it is quite a lot!

As far as the active defenses go, I'm not without blame there

I find it not very logical to allow somebody to parry & block an attack at the same time.
Or block & dodge. You might make an argument for parry & dodge maybe.

As it stands, you only get to use 1 active defense against 1 attack at my table. If you're attacked several times, you can use a different one each time of course. Or you could alternate between block & parry every turn, since they have recharge 2, and are not "up" every turn.

But you are unaffected by the points in general then? All the better for you!

What Nisses said.

Also, I play on a not-that-big table and with 3 players and a GM, if I use very bits & pieces, my table is so much full of stuff, it's hard to get the focus on anything. Also, unfortunatly, I can't afford game sessions more than 4 hours so I need to optimize my game time as much as possible. Removing some cards (I don't use basic cards, party sheet, stance tracker) cleans up the table and make everything more clear and keep the game moving faster, focussing more on the narrative and players' actions.

I too find the active defenses aren't adding much. A lot of games out there just go away with a flat bonus if you take a dodge/parry/block/evasion/whatnot ability/feat/power/skill and I think it's faster this way. Also, adding a black dice with only 50% of getting something on the dice (that doesn't even mean getting something on the dice will have any effect on the roll outcome anyway). It's kind of fiddling around for not much. I would keep improved defenses though since they must be purchased, for one, and they are a lot more meaningful. Also, their requirement makes having all three more difficult.

Improved defences are great and they do indeed ad a lot of defence.

A lot of the suggestions going around these days really destroy the entire system and I think the best approach would be to just play 2nd edition.

The mechanic of active defences only being available every second round is great. If you throw all defence one round you'll be vulnerable the next round. Then you have cards that can recharge your defences faster. Cards that do damage based on the number of tokens on certain cards, effects that as a side effect make the targets card recharge slower etc.

So many details of the system is removed by the suggestions floating about. The recharge rates etc. are not just random. Just look at the wardancer cards. They have been created to create a flowing combo that under the best curcumstances can be very lethal if executed right. Your suggestions destroy systems like this completely and you may as well play something else, because a lot of cards will be pointless, completely gimped, overpowered and gameplay balance will be completely gone. The things they have done with cards aren't just random. I see systems in this game that I haven't seen in RPGs before. In older RPGs attacks or spells just stood on their own. In this game it's very different and the recharge system is very central to the action card system.

Improved defences are great and they do indeed ad a lot of defence.

A lot of the suggestions going around these days really destroy the entire system and I think the best approach would be to just play 2nd edition.

The mechanic of active defences only being available every second round is great. If you throw all defence one round you'll be vulnerable the next round. Then you have cards that can recharge your defences faster. Cards that do damage based on the number of tokens on certain cards, effects that as a side effect make the targets card recharge slower etc.

So many details of the system is removed by the suggestions floating about. The recharge rates etc. are not just random. Just look at the wardancer cards. They have been created to create a flowing combo that under the best curcumstances can be very lethal if executed right. Your suggestions destroy systems like this completely and you may as well play something else, because a lot of cards will be pointless, completely gimped, overpowered and gameplay balance will be completely gone. The things they have done with cards aren't just random. I see systems in this game that I haven't seen in RPGs before. In older RPGs attacks or spells just stood on their own. In this game it's very different and the recharge system is very central to the action card system.

Gallows, who ate the jelly out of your donut?

I don't think anybody is claiming the recharge rates are random?
Changing the effect of the active defenses also doesn't really break anything else, it's very much limited to those 3 cards alone.

And a lot of the other things about this edition are just a whole lot of fun. To simply tell us to get out and play 2nd edition seems a bit harsh. At least that's how I interpreted your second line.

This is still "house rules", meaning we can float around ideas about things we like, try, or change about the RAW.

You say the mechanic of active defences is great, I disagree and find it stretches what you would expect people to be able to do. As said before, I can't imagine anybody both blocking, dodging & parrying the same attack. So for me it doesn't mesh well with the rest, and I will actively look into changing it.

Through trial & error (some other threads), I've come to the realisation that the recharge-mechanic will not be able to be replaced. As you say, too many other cards rely on it, and use it. I just don't like how they tried to make combat less game-ist by doing away with a battle-grid, squares, strategy for flanking etc like D&D, but they added a whole new game-ist mechanic in its stead. (Tell me the wardancer&greatsword of hoeth is anything but a cool mechanic for the sake of mechanic?)

Gallows said it for me, but this is a bad idea. I'm not saying don't do it, its your game and if you (and more importantly, your players) don't mind messing with (and possibly destroying) the tactical decisions and game balance inherent in the recharge system, then have at it. Just be warned that there is far more to it than "simply affecting those three actions." Many other parts of the game play off the recharge mechanic and removing that from the active defenses also removes all of those character options from your players. It affects NPCs far less, but this is only going to negatively affect your players unless you purposely overpower whatever option you choose to replace the active defense. If you want to be fair to your players, call a vote and let them decide, but don't make it one sided. Let your players know all of the facts on both sides of the debate so they can make an educated decision to play the game they want to play.

Didn't mean it in a harsh way. It was just honest advice. I never intended it as "since you don't like 3rd ed. get lost"

I just really think you'll gimp the system if you change some of those things. If you really want to I think you need to create an entirely new system using whatever components you do like.

As for the active defences, so you see a round of combat as one static attack for each person?

I see it as a series of blows and back and forth movement trying to actually land a blow. In this sense there is nothing wrong with a guy using his shield to push the enemy back making it harder for him to get that hit in, then using his defenses to dodge and move about while finally keeping his weapon in a defensive position. Sacrificing so much for defence and then attacking means he may open himself up to counter attacks the following round. Many of the small wounds will be simple cuts and bruises from failed attack attempts. Critical wounds means you hit him hard.

It's a matter of balance too... sacrifice all your defenses against that one enemy and you're left vulnerable. It adds a layer of strategy to combat and it would be a shame to remove that.

If you see combat as one person making one attack and either hitting or missing then a lot of things don't make sense.

For me a round of combat is several attempts at striking, fake strikes, feints, moves, dodging, parrying and blocking. It's not just one attack.

We're using a grid for combat. It changes nothing really - it's just like having a ruler for the ranges under the standups and having absolute positions. Four squares is one range increment. Check my house rules if you're curious (signature).

Gallows,

I know you didn't mean it in any harsh way, no biggie I apologise for my wording.

The standard answer in WFRP3 is: an action is a series of blows & attacks and feints etc. However, if you want to go the realistic tour, it makes even less sense A series of blows or jabs, and all you can do for a short time is block & cajole & parry, but then you get flustered for the equivalent of 2 rounds and can't put up the defense anymore, yet you can still execute your own action just fine?

It's a mechanic any which way you slice it, and I'm fine with that. At some point you need to set a mechanic, if you want to get ahead with the rest of the story. And you need some semblance of balance for it as well. I guess it's the "active" defense that strikes me as odd in this. Why wouldn't you get out of the way ALL the time, if you are not restrained or severely fatigued? Hence the "always on" mode that was suggested for the basic defenses.

Nisses said:

Don't worry about it... I just get caught up in the discussion at times. I enjoy these debates, because they require that you consider game systems and sometimes you arrive at conclusions you hadn't seen comming

Yeah I know what you mean about the realism. But I see it more as a mechanic with a tactical element to it. But I interpret all out defense one round and an inability to defend the next as the character actually being put on the defensive, requiring him to gain his footing. Ahh well can't possibly explain a fireball either, so I think I'll just go with the fact that I like it from a mechanical and gameplay perspective

The main thing I've got to do is sit down and check out action cards. When we currently run into issues is only if somone says "hey, your house rule affects this card," and we just come to a ruling on the spot. Not been difficult so far. I don't think anything else is affected. There are a couple action cards that have "if you do not have an active defense recharging" or "while your active defense is recharging" lines on there that I'll have to check out.

In my estimation, it affects about 6 cards (mostly bulwark and shield-related ones) so not too much review [crossing fingers].

jh

I was correct: 6 cards have anything to do with defense recharge:

Counterblow (block)

Riposte (Parry)

Hostile Redirection (dodge)

Sword & Board (2 eagles single line effect it recharges Block)

Bodyguard (block)

Retribution (block)

Most of them are "reactions" which means that they can be used ONCE after being attacked. Nothing to house rule there and the universal effect can take the place of any "recharge" effect lines.

I'm now certain that the active defense recharge is no longer a necessary part of my game

jh

What about cards with boon lines that recharge an Active Defence? Part of the utility of those cards is that they recharge a defence.

"My life for yours" and "Path of Falling Water" spring to mind, I'm sure there are others.