Hi, I was just wondering if anyone knew what the enemy/player ratio is? Unlike D&D enemies dont have a point cost so im not sure how many enemies to use per encounter. Is it usually 1 on 1? and what about hordes? 2 on 1?

Thanks for your help

WFRP3 is very realistic in the manner, that mass counts a lot. A single powerful pc or npc can't stand against 3 or 4 lesser (n)pcs.

In my games I have to improvise a lot. Like have some snotlings bite the legs of the dwarf slayer so he has to get rid of them first, before slaying the big troll with one strike, f.e.

IMHO you can't really judge the "right" ammount of enemies in WFRP3. It all depends on a lot of parameters.

Another thing is, that in WFRP3 the players can immensely enhance their combat-performance by thinking more along the lines of mmorpg-tactics. So have a tank play with social actions to get enemies to attack them and have damage-dealers kill them, while someone buffs all and plays with combat enhamcements.

My group still has not got the hang of this. They all play for themselves in combat and thus lose more often than necessary. Assisting, guarding, teamwork abilities, social actions, terain, etc. all make a huge difference.

This is a good topic that I think deserves additional discussion, so I made a chart below:

Gauging enemies in WFRP3 (and previous editions) depends on ONE variable: How combat heavy is your group?

If your group has any of the following then you need to beef up encounters: Ironbreaker, Trollslayer, Swordmaster, combat spellcaster or any character with Reckless cleave. Use the chart below and bump it up one ROW.

If your character has no characters with WEAPON SKILL trained, then bump it down one ROW.

Consider rally steps and healing time. This chart below is designed to DROP at least one character into unconsciousness. At that point either the PCs or the remaining ENEMIES should run away.

Here's a handy chart:

jh

Anybody test out this theory?

[it might be something handy to have on your GMs screen along with this: http://rpggeek.com/thread/1077484/typical-encounter-strengths-in-my-games

Anybody test out this theory?

I think I will ASAP. Seeing that none of the PCs have been knocked unconscious seven episodes in, I think this could help in making combat more challenging. But I need it to be specified what constitutes easy and tough enemies, as well as the boundry between them for this to be of much use. How would, say, cult mutants, marauders, gors and orcs be classified using that distinction?

Also, how did you paste that table? Much to my annoyance, I haven't been able to figure out how to do that.

Anybody test out this theory?

I haven't specifically tested your formulas, but my gut instinct is that your chart over-estimates the amount of power-up that happens as PCs advance in rank. Your math suggests that Rank 3 characters can handle over twice as many enemies as Rank 1 characters, but I don't think that's actually the case.

Non-combat characters could not. Their soak and wounds simply would not account for that kind of advancement. Combat characters could probably handle twice as many by rank 3. I guesstimate this would be the case because of the following: increased soak, increased WT, increased rechargeable combat actions essentially negating any "recharge" worries, increased fortune characteristic dice (if your group uses them..we don't), which increase criticals to nearly every round.

Not sure how to test the theory. Maybe take a character's dice and look at the statistcal odds on the DICE ROLLER. In any case, I'd rather have every single combat be too challenging where I can have some bad guys run away (or the PCs run away), than have pointless, easy "balanced" encounters. I like my players to have to seriously think about whether or not they should be attempting violence at ANY point in the game. Funny though, our groups have nearly always tended towards more "roguish" than melee, so my theory (above) took out 5+ characters during our Dying of the Light campaign. It wasn't due to too many in a single combat, but the attrition and inability for the group to get fully healed up.

Anybody test out this theory?

I think I will ASAP. Seeing that none of the PCs have been knocked unconscious seven episodes in, I think this could help in making combat more challenging. But I need it to be specified what constitutes easy and tough enemies, as well as the boundary between them for this to be of much use. How would, say, cult mutants, marauders, gors and orcs be classified using that distinction? Also, how did you paste that table? Much to my annoyance, I haven't been able to figure out how to do that.

Yes, if none have been knocked unconscious even once, then your combats are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too easy.

The table was posted when the webmaster actually trusted people to have th eability to post tables. Now evidently they don't trust anyone anymore. Their choice..but since they don't particpate on their forums, why would they care anyways? Must be a webmaster thing. For the future, you're probably stuck just taking a screenshot and linking it to the forums (grrrrrr).

I look at it this way for enemy toughness:

* Ungor, snotlings, goblins, etc. They barely count in a combat except for fodder..as they should

* Orcs, gor, wargor, crypt ghouls...yea, they count. You just gotta find the right balance.

The thing to remember is: the enemies don't need to fight to the death. In fact, it's better if they take a crit and run away holding their eye and the PCs encounter them again later..and the enemy has a REASON to hate the PCs. I had a bandito in our first leg of the Enemy Within that has been stalking the PCs ever since. I've even leveled el bastardo and he has been a thorn in the PCs side ever since. I'm going to have him come back in Book 3 in Altdorf and be like, "remember me? Ha! I am the el bastardo bandito from book 1 returned to haunt you eh! You killed my friends! Prepare to die!." Yes, I'm making it sound cheezy, but it kind of rings true for what a beastman/ungor would probably do. He'd get hit and say, "screw this! I'm going home to my nice cozy herdstone".

In essence: When the battle looks like it's going to be a TPK (total party kill), you just have something spook them off.

Yes, if none have been knocked unconscious even once, then your combats are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too easy.

I had figured as much quite some time ago, and I have honestly been trying to increase the difficulty in verious ways, but the players keep defying my expectations. One of the things I have learned is that they are extremely effective against single targets and small groups - a Grey Wizard using Bewilder along with a hunter's Find Weakness render who(m?)ever they are up against vulnerable and crippled. Those two actions turned what I thought would be a tough bossfight against a necromancer and his zombie ogre into a cakewalk.

I have made some plans to explore and clarify the PC's mortality in upcoming episodes:

1) An encounter where the PCs are ambushed by Beastmen that outnumber them at least ten-to-one. These will display oddly composed and unbeastmanlike behaviour and only attack in small waves that gradually increase in size. I intend to let this happen until at least half of the PCs are KO'd before the attack is unexpectedly called off by the Beastmen's leader. And yes, there is a plot-realted reason for such an oddity.

2) An episode where the Pcs have to infiltrate a cult-infested village, nick some items and/or kill the cult leader in order to stop a ritual. If the alarm is sounded, which will happen sooner or later, a number of cultists they cannot hope to defeat will try to hunt them down. They will have no chance unless they keep their mortality in mind and take a more subtle approach.

3) If they are caught by the cultists (and not killed their leader), they will be captured and made to witness their planned ritual and become the first victims of the terrible super-Spawn it will produce. Things do not quite go as expected, and our heroes will be given a chance to escape certain death, but they now have to fight the abomination. This time, I will make the bossfight a bit harder than I think they can manage, just to be on the safe side, and let them retry (perhaps with an adjusted difficulty) if they fail.

Does that sound like a decent plan? I can give more details if you want.

The thing to remember is: the enemies don't need to fight to the death. In fact, it's better if they take a crit and run away holding their eye and the PCs encounter them again later..and the enemy has a REASON to hate the PCs. I had a bandito in our first leg of the Enemy Within that has been stalking the PCs ever since. I've even leveled el bastardo and he has been a thorn in the PCs side ever since. I'm going to have him come back in Book 3 in Altdorf and be like, "remember me? Ha! I am the el bastardo bandito from book 1 returned to haunt you eh! You killed my friends! Prepare to die!." Yes, I'm making it sound cheezy, but it kind of rings true for what a beastman/ungor would probably do. He'd get hit and say, "screw this! I'm going home to my nice cozy herdstone".

That sounds like a distinguishing mark of an experienced and and excellent GM. I'm still a bit of a rookie and have a quite hard time keeping everything in mind as it is, but I really gotta learn to do that and implement it somehow. It will work especially good in my upcoming (and first) campaign centred around bounty hunting, methinks.

Check out how I'm running the GM's walkthrough of Eye for an Eye. Look at how I focus on weaknesses: non-career skill checks, stress, fatigue, disease, shame, obligations (influence), corruption, getting things and innocent bystanders in the way, and CONDITIONS (especially with chaos stars..which are rolled often) can really keep things interesting. If your group is awesome in combat, guess what they're weak at: EVERYTHING ELSE Do you have them make skill checks while travelling to contribute to the "health" and "success" of travels?

Yes, you want them to shine, but you also want to test their ability to be well-rounded. Combats might just end up being easy for them and that's not a bad thing but if at least 1:3 isn't a pretty darned good challenge, then they're going to eventually get bored.

Another thing is that if your group is tough, start applying those templates from Hero's call to EVERY creature. Add armor (shields work good for an extra point), to EVERY creature.

All "bosses" should have equal if not tougher underlings and all spellcasters should be surrounded by multiple spellcaster apprentices (use spites, spirits, goblins with wands, whatever).

There should also be very little rest and recovery between if you want them to limp into combat tired and facing a hard fight. Put them in situations where they're in the middle of the woods and multiple groups of beastmen are seeking them..and they know it..and even if they beat one group, they know another will be there within an hour and they'll have to fight a third group if they try to make it back home.

This should NOT be every encounter. I personally do a couple cake-walk combats to make my players paranoid..and then I spring a really nasty encounter in which they need to make some really hard choices like: run away or die..keep fighting but the plot will be harder and no reward...keep fighting but armor/weapons will become damaged...etc.

Keep at it, and if nothing else: keep your combats FAST so that they're at least enjoyable while they're mowing through opponents.

jh

If you have a group that is very combat proficient, allow them to be that and make sure to give them challenges in other arenas to make them see that swinging a sword is not the only thing needed to prosper in the Warhammer world. But do not make combat encounters deadly simply to make them challenging. The combat should be deadly because it fits the story, not because you are intentionally trying to kill the PCs. Or at some point they will go "There is an orc boss and retinue in this room too? Really? What is this? The annual Orc Boss Convention?"

I am reminded of a Deathwatch campaign where I was a player: The actual challenge of the game was to RP space marines, figure out how to navigate the political system of the Imperium and how to handle often morally ambiguous choices. Then, once in a while, we would go into combat and we would just DOMINATE everything. I felt combat encounters were mostly there to make me go "Oh right, we are total badasses." Then we went back to being frustrated at the planetary governors lack of support for our mission and our inability to root out a suspected heretical cult.

The game wasn't about beating combat encounters. Winning in combat was almost a given. The challenge was in choosing which fights to engage in and figureing out who to fight.