I was aware that the rules say that npc's share action cards, meaning that if a npc uses a given action card, no other npc can use it again while it is recharging.

Recently I realized that the rules also state that multiple monsters of the same type share the same Aggression, Cunning and Expertise die pool. In particular

"When more than one NPC or monster is present in an encounter,
each type of NPC or monster shares a single allotment of Aggression,
Cunning, and Expertise dice for simplicity – you do not
multiply these values by the number of creatures present."

any idea why is that? or what it represents?

Why the bigger the group of NPC's, the less resourceful are they individuals?

I assume its just for bookkeeping purposes ... if u want them to be more skilled ... just up their ACE accordingly

It is indeed simpler to have one pool.

Like sharing actions, sharing the ACE pool encourages a bit of "narrative concept" thinking. Whether they are individuals or henchman "gang", a group goblins or wolves or trolls is "a group", whereas the boss goblin, wolf or troll, etc. is "a different menace".

Indirectly, it encourages you GM to think, "should I add a 5th standard goblin, or shouldn't I instead make it more interesting by adding something else."

Rob

The problem I have with the rule of the GM Guide dealing with multiple opponents, meaning npc's share action cards and dice pool, is that I don't understand its purpose. I would like some of the guys who designed the game to explain which the goal of such a rule was.
When I see the rest of the rules in the game, whether I like them or I not, I understand why are like they are (or I think I do). Typically, combat rules, haggling rules, opposed skill checks rules, magic rules, wound threshold, corruption...these are rules presenting a mechanic attempting to simulate the "real" Old World.
On the other hand this scaling for multiple opponents with actions and dice pool...I don't see its meaning. It is hard to me to find a meaning to this rule, why not simply, if an orc has A6 C2 E2, a group of 3 orcs has A18 C6 E6? Or why not each individual Orc of the group has A6 C2 E2, why they share the pool just because they are 3 or 2 or 8?
Just as a side comment, this does not bothered me by it in my games. In my games, npc's do not share action cards neither dice pool, each of them have their own. But it intrigues me a lot!

well if it works for you thats good .... but me personally I would hate to deal with 10 sets of actioncards and recharge etc ... having a common pool of cards etc is as I see it just another example of a compromise between detail and winging it ...which unlike IMO unlike the abstract movement actually works pretty well ....

Boehm said:

my players create a software that does manage encounters, creatures, action cards, wounds, conditions, etc. It is really easy now. It didn't take so much effort for them to write the software, and it is for sure the best investment we have done; preparing an encounter is a matter of a few seconds. If any of your players has a minimum knowledge of programming I would suggest you to do it. You will see a new world opening

The purpose I see to sharing is mostly demonstrated when you have monsters with cool signature/killer moves.

e.g., Troll acid vomit or dragon breath fire.

From a balance perspective, "each of the 3 trolls spews acidic vomit" may be a bit much, ditto every dragon breathes fire.

From a narrative perspective (the story), it also becomes less 'special' and more 'mechanical'.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

Rob

I like your answer, in the sense that, after having read all the books of the 3rd edition, I have the feeling that it may be the right one.

On the other hand

valvorik said:

You can always balance an encounter by putting less enemies, or giving the characters the opportunity to ambush them, or many other mechanism than just removing from the individual monsters their unique abilities which still makes me feel unconfortable with the idea.

valvorik said:

On the other hand for example, there is no rule saying that it is not possible for your six player characters to have each, the double strike action card and perform it on the same combat round.

But indeed, you may be right, and the designers may have had something like this in their minds when they developed the rules.

Cheers

re the last, each player having double strike - nothing hard in rules on this but my table we do play that all non-basic actions are "unique", it's not just there's only one card for that in a box, only one PC can have that. Makes each PC "special".

It depends on what level of complexity, token management and card space any said GM is willing to take on. For me, the KISS principle behind the screen helps a lot and means I can hopefully focus on the dramatic ebb and flow rather than mechanics. If I describe actions and results narratively, hopefully it doesn't really feel any more different on the other side of the screen from more granular approach.

Managing so many pools and cards would totally sap my mediocre GM talents. No. NPCs x 4pools + No. Std Actions + Other Actions =

Yepesnopes said:

The answer is in the quote actually. For simplicity.

I use the rules for henchmen only. Each other NPC has his own A/C/E. Since I use a sheet to track wounds and A/C/E each NPC has his own box and each group of henchmen has their own box. This means it doesn't make it more simple for me to use this rule. NPCs also use A/C/E when using extra maneuvers or when they get hit my fatigue/stress effects.

I am very sorry that I can't give credit for this sheet, because I can't remember who made it... but here it is: Wound tracker