PDA

View Full Version : [WHFRP] Too difficult to hit?



pasko77
2009-07-21, 07:37 AM
Hi all,
i'm searching for someone with experience in Warhammer RPG (2nd ed).
It seems to me that:
1) landing a hit is too hard
2) people hit the same percentage regardless to the opponent (this is really sad)
3) damage dealt is too much random
4) bows suck, guns suck twice.

I'd like to try this fix:
everyone has +1A in the profile, and a free parry. In this way there is almost every turn a hit and the possibility of parry enables the defender to modify the result.

This should solve issues 1) and 2), maybe even 4), since distance weapons cannot be parried or dogded.

Opinions about this idea?
Any other ideas, based on your experience?
Thanks!

Matthew
2009-07-21, 08:00 AM
I dunno about 2e, but in 1e (which has much the same percentages) the probabilities to hit seem fine to me. Usually start out at around 30-40% and go up to around 60-70% before weapon specialities, which would send them up another 10% or so.

Parries in 1e are gained from substituting attack and rolling under your weapon skill. Is that the same in 2e?

The change from 1d6 to 1d10 damage and the increase in armour values may have had the effect you are describing. You could try reducing it to 1d6+2 or something like that.

Of course, combat is not really the main focus of WHFRP, so you may be having a bit of an expectation issue.

pasko77
2009-07-21, 08:38 AM
Parries in 1e are gained from substituting attack and rolling under your weapon skill. Is that the same in 2e?



Yes, if you have 2 or more attacks.
If you have only one attack you can "aim" for +10% or ready a parry. So every round you can have a good attack, or a crippled attack and a parry.

Plus you get a free dodge each round, if you have the "dodge" ability. It rolls under agility (equivalent to 1ed Initiative, i dunno if in 1ed there were both values, now Initiative does not exist any more).

Krrth
2009-07-21, 08:46 AM
Yes, if you have 2 or more attacks.
If you have only one attack you can "aim" for +10% or ready a parry. So every round you can have a good attack, or a crippled attack and a parry.

Plus you get a free dodge each round, if you have the "dodge" ability. It rolls under agility (equivalent to 1ed Initiative, i dunno if in 1ed there were both values, now Initiative does not exist any more).

Really? I thought it used the same rule set as Dark Heresy. There, you can still Dodge even if you don't know the skill, just at half value.

hamlet
2009-07-21, 08:51 AM
Really? I thought it used the same rule set as Dark Heresy. There, you can still Dodge even if you don't know the skill, just at half value.

The rules are not quite the same, though learning one will make you moderately familiar with the other.

Similarity is, I believe, akin to that between AD&D and Basic D&D.

Krrth
2009-07-21, 08:54 AM
The rules are not quite the same, though learning one will make you moderately familiar with the other.

Similarity is, I believe, akin to that between AD&D and Basic D&D.

Ah. I do know that in DH, combat is dangerous. You really, really don't want to be hit.

Sinfire Titan
2009-07-21, 08:54 AM
Really? I thought it used the same rule set as Dark Heresy. There, you can still Dodge even if you don't know the skill, just at half value.

That is true for 2E WFRP. Saved my hide a few times.

Swordguy
2009-07-21, 08:56 AM
Check with your players. While it may seem like landing a hit is too hard to you, remember that getting hit in WFRP really sucks. Increasing hit chances across the board will only hurt the players in the long run (since you'll obviously make this same change for the NPC they run into, right?).

Honestly, most complaints about the game are that it's too easy to get hit and die instantly. The game is essentially D&D meets Call of Cthulhu (plus a healthy dose of British macabre humor).

If you absolutely MUST do something, just give everyone a free Weapon Specialization. There's a +10% chance to hit across the board (having a free Parry is also awful nice, but it'll actually decrease effective hit rates...).

Matthew
2009-07-21, 09:31 AM
Yes, if you have 2 or more attacks.
If you have only one attack you can "aim" for +10% or ready a parry. So every round you can have a good attack, or a crippled attack and a parry.

Hmmn. In 1e you do not have to ready a parry, you just declare it after a damaging hit has been scored, and can parry so long as you have an attack remaining. A shield would give you +20% parry, but at the expense of all your attacks (no big deal if you only have 1).



Plus you get a free dodge each round, if you have the "dodge" ability. It rolls under agility (equivalent to 1ed Initiative, I dunno if in 1ed there were both values, now Initiative does not exist any more).

Yeah, no agility in 1e, I heard that was introduced in 2e as a replacement for initiative. Dodge works in 1e as you describe.



If you absolutely MUST do something, just give everyone a free Weapon Specialization. There's a +10% chance to hit across the board (having a free Parry is also awful nice, but it'll actually decrease effective hit rates...).
I got that a bit wrong for 1e, and had to go look it up. A weapon speciality actually negates the −10% for using a "specialist weapon". Does it work as you describe in 2e or is my error being compounded? :smallbiggrin:

Kiero
2009-07-21, 09:37 AM
Yes, if you have 2 or more attacks.
If you have only one attack you can "aim" for +10% or ready a parry. So every round you can have a good attack, or a crippled attack and a parry.

If you have a second weapon or shield, you get a free parry.

Allegedly, the way you are supposed to play WFRP is to look for the bonuses. Flank, surprise, outnumber. GMs should be giving those away liberally, which redresses the low hit chances (though not the flat probability curve...).

My problem with WFRP is the threefold whiff. You have a to-hit roll. Which is then potentially dodged or parried. Then you have the damage roll, which if you roll too low does nothing. You can have long combats where nothing happens, and we've had a few of those. Just lots of pointless rolls.

Swordguy
2009-07-21, 09:55 AM
I got that a bit wrong for 1e, and had to go look it up. A weapon speciality actually negates the −10% for using a "specialist weapon". Does it work as you describe in 2e or is my error being compounded? :smallbiggrin:

I was going off of memory as well, and what you had said (by mistake, evidently) jivved with my recollection. I'd have to go check my book to be sure. Of course, he could always say "the heck with it" and just GIVE people a +10% bonus to WS and to hell with justifying it with a RAW ability. :smallamused:

Matthew
2009-07-21, 10:15 AM
If you have a second weapon or shield, you get a free parry.

That is interesting; in 1e that is not the case, but I can see why they might have added that. I suppose it must be balanced by the various weapon properties somehow?



Allegedly, the way you are supposed to play WFRP is to look for the bonuses. Flank, surprise, outnumber. GMs should be giving those away liberally, which redresses the low hit chances (though not the flat probability curve...).

Ah, that sounds like it might have replaced the "winning" rule, where the side that has inflicted the most damage gets a +10% bonus to hit in the following round and drives back the opposition.



My problem with WFRP is the threefold whiff. You have a to-hit roll. Which is then potentially dodged or parried. Then you have the damage roll, which if you roll too low does nothing. You can have long combats where nothing happens, and we've had a few of those. Just lots of pointless rolls.

Do parries negate the hit entirely in 2e or just reduce the damage? In 1e a parry reduces the damage by 1d6. So the procedure is Roll to Hit → Roll to Damage → Roll to Parry → Roll to Reduce Damage; I think a dodge negates a hit entirely, though.



I was going off of memory as well, and what you had said (by mistake, evidently) jivved with my recollection. I'd have to go check my book to be sure. Of course, he could always say "the heck with it" and just GIVE people a +10% bonus to WS and to hell with justifying it with a RAW ability. :smallamused:

No doubt. :smallbiggrin:

Morty
2009-07-21, 10:51 AM
Having just run my first WFRP 2nd edition combat - as well as a test combat before that - I agree. Players just rolled and rolled before the battle finally ended - even though I made their opponents use Frenzied Attack for +20% to hit without parry. Then again, neither of the two PCs participating in the fight was good at melee combat - they both had 33 WS and no melee-related talents. Still, I found it a bit disappointing.


Do parries negate the hit entirely in 2e or just reduce the damage? In 1e a parry reduces the damage by 1d6. So the procedure is Roll to Hit → Roll to Damage → Roll to Parry → Roll to Reduce Damage; I think a dodge negates a hit entirely, though.


Yes, parry removes the damage in 2nd edition entirely.

Matthew
2009-07-21, 11:13 AM
Yes, parry removes the damage in 2nd edition entirely.

Right you are; I have to admit, I think we always played it that way, though I seem to recall that we also played that you had to roll under the opponent's attack roll.



Having just run my first WFRP 2nd edition combat - as well as a test combat before that - I agree. Players just rolled and rolled before the battle finally ended - even though I made their opponents use Frenzied Attack for +20% to hit without parry. Then again, neither of the two PCs participating in the fight was good at melee combat - they both had 33 WS and no melee-related talents. Still, I found it a bit disappointing.

That does sound annoying. Can you provide any more details about the combat, like number of combatants, relative strength, toughness, wounds, weapons, and armour?

Morty
2009-07-21, 11:22 AM
Right you are; I have to admit, I think we always played it that way, though I seem to recall that we also played that you had to roll under the opponent's attack roll.

That might be an interesting hoserule, but by the book, you simply have to succeed on a WS skill.


That does sound annoying. Can you provide any more details about the combat, like number of combatants, relative strength, toughness, wounds, weapons, and armour?

Well, let's see. One of the PCs was a soldier with 33 WS, 12 wounds, a sword and a shield and dressed in leather armor. He didn't have any talents related to melee fighting, as the player wanted to focus on shooting his rifle. The other PC was a ranger, with 33 WS, 12 wounds, a handaxe and no armor. Again, he has no melee-related talents. Both of them are rather good at shooting, but none of them took their missle weapons - it was a night escapade into the city to watch the neighbourhood as the other two PCs broke into the temple of Sigmar. Both of them had a Strength and Toughness of 3. Their enemies were two thugs straight out of the Bestiary. It should also be noted that it was my first time running a combat in WFRP and our group is rather... chaotic, so to speak.

pasko77
2009-07-21, 11:30 AM
Right you are; I have to admit, I think we always played it that way, though I seem to recall that we also played that you had to roll under the opponent's attack roll.


That does sound annoying. Can you provide any more details about the combat, like number of combatants, relative strength, toughness, wounds, weapons, and armour?

Sure.
5 character, mid level, it means a full basic career completed.
2 orcs, 2 goblins, 1 elf against mere mobs (never bothered to roll a parry).

Elf is a sniper (+15% Bs from career) and still it takes 4/5 rounds to shot down an opponent (so much for high mortality), because a bow has Strength 3 and no real way to improve it.

One of the goblin is an engineer. Despite his full 50% to hit, a gun shoots once every two rounds or so. Then if he rolls bad to hit, he has to change weapon or stay still for one full round.

One of the orcs is a bounty hunter, with nifty entangling weapons.... and a 40% to hit... sigh.

The other orc is a warmachine and does not really need anything :)

The last character is not fight focused, he is a Messenger, so I gave him a wolf as an aid during fights. Still, 25% to hit for him and 33% for the wolf.

A single player may stay several turns without anything happening.

Sinfire Titan
2009-07-21, 11:49 AM
Sure.
5 character, mid level, it means a full basic career completed.
2 orcs, 2 goblins, 1 elf against mere mobs (never bothered to roll a parry).

Elf is a sniper (+15% Bs from career) and still it takes 4/5 rounds to shot down an opponent (so much for high mortality), because a bow has Strength 3 and no real way to improve it.

One of the goblin is an engineer. Despite his full 50% to hit, a gun shoots once every two rounds or so. Then if he rolls bad to hit, he has to change weapon or stay still for one full round.

One of the orcs is a bounty hunter, with nifty entangling weapons.... and a 40% to hit... sigh.

The other orc is a warmachine and does not really need anything :)

The last character is not fight focused, he is a Messenger, so I gave him a wolf as an aid during fights. Still, 25% to hit for him and 33% for the wolf.

A single player may stay several turns without anything happening.

Add in armor, Toughness checks, and healing effects (potions or spells), and combat tends to take a while.

Even premade modules have this problem. Any enemy decked out in Plate armor will be hard to kill.

Kiero
2009-07-21, 12:26 PM
Do parries negate the hit entirely in 2e or just reduce the damage? In 1e a parry reduces the damage by 1d6. So the procedure is Roll to Hit → Roll to Damage OR Roll to Parry → Roll to Do Damage; I think a dodge negates a hit entirely, though.

Minor changes, but as mentioned a parry or dodge (you can't do both against the same attack) totally negates a hit. Rolling under their Toughness bonus + Armour also negates a hit. Some very tough opponents it becomes a matter not even of hitting them and not having it dodged/parried, but of landing something that causes hurt at all.

Matthew
2009-07-21, 12:28 PM
That might be an interesting hoserule, but by the book, you simply have to succeed on a WS skill.

Indeed; I am pretty sure it was a "fix" on our part.



Well, let's see. One of the PCs was a soldier with 33 WS, 12 wounds, a sword and a shield and dressed in leather armor. He didn't have any talents related to melee fighting, as the player wanted to focus on shooting his rifle. The other PC was a ranger, with 33 WS, 12 wounds, a handaxe and no armor. Again, he has no melee-related talents. Both of them are rather good at shooting, but none of them took their missle weapons - it was a night escapade into the city to watch the neighbourhood as the other two PCs broke into the temple of Sigmar. Both of them had a Strength and Toughness of 3. Their enemies were two thugs straight out of the Bestiary. It should also be noted that it was my first time running a combat in WFRP and our group is rather... chaotic, so to speak.

I suppose this must be to do with the 1d10 damage instead of 1d6, but I think 7 or 8 wounds was pretty much the maximum starting values in 1e. Yeah, looks like "d3+4" for humans. On the other hand, a "Thug" in the Middenheim source book has the following statistics:

M 4, WS 40, S 3, T 4, W 7, I 30, A 1
Skill: Strike Mighty Blow (+1 Damage)

Not sure how that compares to the 2e version.



5 character, mid level, it means a full basic career completed.
2 orcs, 2 goblins, 1 elf against mere mobs (never bothered to roll a parry).

Elf is a sniper (+15% BS from career) and still it takes 4/5 rounds to shot down an opponent (so much for high mortality), because a bow has Strength 3 and no real way to improve it.

One of the goblin is an engineer. Despite his full 50% to hit, a gun shoots once every two rounds or so. Then if he rolls bad to hit, he has to change weapon or stay still for one full round.

One of the orcs is a bounty hunter, with nifty entangling weapons.... and a 40% to hit... sigh.

The other orc is a warmachine and does not really need anything :)

The last character is not fight focused, he is a Messenger, so I gave him a wolf as an aid during fights. Still, 25% to hit for him and 33% for the wolf.

A single player may stay several turns without anything happening.

Sounds like it might be an issue with the change over. In 1e any military style basic career should get you +1 A (Mercenary, Militiaman, Marine, Soldier, Bodyguard, Outlaw, Protagonist, Seaman, Squire, Watchman, Tunnel Fighter) and Strike Mighty Blow (+1 D, even at range), opponents 5-7 wounds and a toughness of 3-5 (including AP). BS would be 40-50% so most opponents should go down in 1-3 rounds. A sniper type (there is no sniper in 1e) should have marksmanship, which could push it up to 70% if using a long bow.

Even the bounty hunter should probably have a BS of 50%, assuming he bought or successfully rolled marksmanship, 60% with his lasso or net as a specialist weapon (again because of marksmanship).

No rules for playing orcs and goblins in 1e, though, so no idea what their starting attributes might be.



Minor changes, but as mentioned a parry or dodge (you can't do both against the same attack) totally negates a hit. Rolling under their Toughness bonus + Armour also negates a hit. Some very tough opponents it becomes a matter not even of hitting them and not having it dodged/parried, but of landing something that causes hurt at all.

Yeah, I can see that. In 1e you pretty much couldn't help but cause damage if you hit because fixed damage usually equalled Toughness + Armour. There could be significant variance, though; an orc with a shield would reduce damage by 5, or 6 if wearing armour on the hit location. A two handed weapon would still generally equalise that, though (+2 D).

Indon
2009-07-21, 12:46 PM
Well, my brief WHFRP experience is relevant here.

My character's a Norse Berserker, and the only meleer of the group. As such, I was going to go with the more defensive option - shield, parrying, stacking armor, etc.

In our first combat, he went down hard and fast - one fate point down, one to go. Turns out, tanking is not a viable tactic in the system especially for a new character. In a system in which one or two hits can pretty easily kill or cripple you, the best defense is one-shotting the other guy first.

So I embraced my Berserkerness and started using a Halberd that we happened to get from that combat. I'm a far better tank with the option to use an Impact weapon (the Fast option is also potentially valuable, Halberds are pretty neat weapons) to deal lots of damage than I was actually trying to soak attacks. So now I just berserk and hope that I get lucky and they hit someplace with good armor, and that I one-shot them.

Another one of our members uses a net sometimes - that makes hitting targets immensely easier.

So, no, it's really not too difficult to hit in my opinion, considering that it's really easy to get taken down as a result of those hits.

Morty
2009-07-21, 12:56 PM
Indeed; I am pretty sure it was a "fix" on our part.

I might consider it myself, once I get a decent hang on the rules.


I suppose this must be to do with the 1d10 damage instead of 1d6, but I think 7 or 8 wounds was pretty much the maximum starting values in 1e. Yeah, looks like "d3+4" for humans. On the other hand, a "Thug" in the Middenheim source book has the following statistics:

M 4, WS 40, S 3, T 4, W 7, I 30, A 1
Skill: Strike Mighty Blow (+1 Damage)

Not sure how that compares to the 2e version.

The 2e version's got less WS and more Wounds.


So, no, it's really not too difficult to hit in my opinion, considering that it's really easy to get taken down as a result of those hits.

I think it gets better when combatants are stronger, though I'm not sure. But I do know that while I don't mind tough opponents taking a lot of rolls to down - I mean, plate armor is supposed to make you very hard to kill - but a combat between two inexperienced, weak combatants taking dozens of rolls and rerolls to resolve... it's a bit tedious.

Indon
2009-07-21, 01:12 PM
I think it gets better when combatants are stronger, though I'm not sure. But I do know that while I don't mind tough opponents taking a lot of rolls to down - I mean, plate armor is supposed to make you very hard to kill - but a combat between two inexperienced, weak combatants taking dozens of rolls and rerolls to resolve... it's a bit tedious.

Well, say my norse berserker advances all the way to Champion and maxes out his Toughness (and takes the +5% Toughness ability along the way) - that puts him at about 60% toughness, a TB of 6. Plate armor is 5 armor, meaning he would reduce a whopping 11 damage, 12 frenzied, at basically his mortal limit.

Now let's look at the damage he can do. Strength roughly parallels Toughness, though there are abilities that increase your damage above and beyond base strength (mind I'm talking about melee weapons - at best, ranged weapon damage pulls even with toughness defenses even with such abilities), let's just ignore them for now.

So we're basically looking at the variable damage for a weapon - 1d10, compared with an armor of 5. 1d10 averages out to 5.5, so you'd think it averages to pretty low damage, but for two things:

-10's. This might be a houserule in my group, but when you roll a 10 for damage, you roll another 1d10 and add them together. This means that 10% of connected hits are going to blow any armor out of the water, leading to a fair chance at an instant kill.

-Impact weapons. Now, Impact as far as I know is always balanced with either the Slow property (making attacks easier to parry) or the Tiring property (making it not very Impacty). But when an Impact weapon hits, it has much greater damage potential because you take the higher of 2d10 for your damage - and if either is a 10 (19% chance, I do believe), then you get the crazy-high damage scenario.

Now this is a houserule - our group ruled that a reroll of a 10 on an impact weapon itself benefits from impact (it might be that way RAW, but our DM didn't want to bother looking it up). My halberd's very very nice.

Oh, also, we were running hit locations, which made some hits pretty ugly.

Morty
2009-07-21, 01:22 PM
-10's. This might be a houserule in my group, but when you roll a 10 for damage, you roll another 1d10 and add them together. This means that 10% of connected hits are going to blow any armor out of the water, leading to a fair chance at an instant kill.

This is an official rule, only you have to roll for WS again and then you can add another d10.
Anyway though, I don't think anyone will deny that when you hit in WFRP, you can hit hard. However, a combat between two people with 31 WS, no talents and Strength and Toughness of 3 will take long. First, they have a 31% chance to hit. Then, their opponent can parry, which is a 31% chance that the blow won't land. Then, they roll for damage and if they roll low, they might not do much, especially if their opponent is wearing armor - and many non-combat professions start with at least torso armor. This happened in the combat I ran a week ago.

Kiero
2009-07-21, 01:54 PM
Yeah, I can see that. In 1e you pretty much couldn't help but cause damage if you hit because fixed damage usually equalled Toughness + Armour. There could be significant variance, though; an orc with a shield would reduce damage by 5, or 6 if wearing armour on the hit location. A two handed weapon would still generally equalise that, though (+2 D).

Interestingly, in my group no one uses a two-handed weapon (well, the mage has a staff). The two main combatants have Str 40-ish and Strike Mighty Blow, the other is more of an archer than melee-ist.

Aedilred
2009-07-21, 01:55 PM
The difficulty of hitting a more skilled opponent is represented by their having the opportunity to parry and dodge. A skilled opponent using a sensible weapon combination (ie not a two-handed weapon) can often avoid getting hit at all by characters with two or fewer attacks.

The difficulty of hitting at all- yeah, starting characters do have this problem, but if the players are concerned about it it's not difficult to pick up talents and enter careers which add to WS and start making it a lot easier. Not to mention that there are ways of stacking the odds in your favour- getting high ground, outnumbering your opponent, and if you use most of the house rules out there, getting on a horse, not to mention the attack options which add to-hit bonuses.

The solution you suggest leads into the "Swift Attack problem"- that there is no sensible option other than the Swift Attack for most characters with 2+ A, charging therefore becomes a disadvantage, and no actions other than Swift Attack are ever taken, making them useless. Increasing the number of attacks is likely to make this problem worse.

What's more, I suspect any solution which makes it easier to hit is going to hurt the players more than their enemies, because their enemies already routinely have higher stats. Make it more likely that a given attack will result in a wound and the chances are you're going to lose a PC before a NPC.

Bows don't suck quite as much as you might think. They do the same damage as a single attack by a first-career character, with none of the risks of melee combat. Take Rapid Reload, which any credible archer career offers, and you can always take the Aim action; after a few careers, once you've got a couple of attacks, Rapid Reload and Mighty Shot, you become a death machine.

Crossbows and guns suffer because of their increased reload time, but in reality I find characters with guns fire once, then engage in melee, partly because guns take so long to reload, but also because most careers which give access to firearm skills already offer potent melee options.

If you're finding combats take too long, try mixing things up and having NPCs vary their attack options a bit- tell your players you'll offer them to-hit bonuses for doing the same. Some of the attack options aren't quite as rubbish as they look, either. With a judicial application of All-Out Attacks, you can really speed things up, for instance.

Personally, I don't find that the PCs or NPCs are missing too much or that combat is routinely taking too long... but then I'm of the opinion that first-career PCs *should* be rubbish and incompetent and have a real struggle on their hands. The problem I have is with balancing higher-level NPCs who would usually hit all the time, because getting hit is so unpleasant.


Now this is a houserule - our group ruled that a reroll of a 10 on an impact weapon itself benefits from impact (it might be that way RAW, but our DM didn't want to bother looking it up). My halberd's very very nice.
Interesting- the general view of the community seems to be that two-handed weapons aren't worth it, because the Impact quality doesn't make up for the loss of the free parry. The player in my group who uses the halberd disagrees, and I've yet to make up my mind, but at present I'm inclined to agree with the community at large.

Whether Impact carries across to Ulric's Fury is an interesting one, that basically requires houseruling either way. A strict interpretation of the RAW, I think, suggests that it shouldn't apply, but it's far from clear.

Indon
2009-07-21, 02:16 PM
Interesting- the general view of the community seems to be that two-handed weapons aren't worth it, because the Impact quality doesn't make up for the loss of the free parry. The player in my group who uses the halberd disagrees, and I've yet to make up my mind, but at present I'm inclined to agree with the community at large.

That's what I thought at first, but in my experience, a dead opponent is safer than a living opponent no matter how many parry chances you have.

Mind, my character's still in his starting class, so his WS is relatively low. All that taken together means that, as far as I can tell, I'm much better off using an all-out attack to increase my chances of one-shotting a target rather than risking being hit by that target.

only1doug
2009-07-21, 02:19 PM
Yes in WFRP combat between 2 non-skilled armoured combatants can take awhile, this is true in both 1e and 2e.

If you really need to fix this offer the players 2 extra free advances, the combat orientated players can improve their weapon skills, the non-combatants don't lose out.

Morty
2009-07-21, 02:30 PM
Whether Impact carries across to Ulric's Fury is an interesting one, that basically requires houseruling either way. A strict interpretation of the RAW, I think, suggests that it shouldn't apply, but it's far from clear.

I'd say it applies, and I'll follow through with this when the soldier in the game I'm running starts using his rifle. It makes deadly weapons really deadly. It's supposed to be a lethal system, after all.

Xenogears
2009-07-21, 02:53 PM
That's what I thought at first, but in my experience, a dead opponent is safer than a living opponent no matter how many parry chances you have.

Mind, my character's still in his starting class, so his WS is relatively low. All that taken together means that, as far as I can tell, I'm much better off using an all-out attack to increase my chances of one-shotting a target rather than risking being hit by that target.

I too found that using a two-handed weapon with impact was awesome. (like taking out a minor imp in one turn as the second opponent in the game....) Granted I rolled REALLY high stats and my two randomly rolled career choices were either a rat killer or a troll slayer. Easiest choice ever....

PLUN
2009-07-21, 04:01 PM
Granted I rolled REALLY high stats and my two randomly rolled career choices were either a rat killer or a troll slayer. Easiest choice ever....

You took Rat Catcher, right? Give me a small (but vicious) dog over a slayers oath any day.

Kiero
2009-07-21, 05:43 PM
Yes in WFRP combat between 2 non-skilled armoured combatants can take awhile, this is true in both 1e and 2e.

Two skilled, armoured combatants will take a long time, too. You'll get more hits, but you'll get more parries and dodges as well.

Darrin
2009-07-21, 05:55 PM
The game is essentially D&D meets Call of Cthulhu (plus a healthy dose of British macabre humor).

And really bad puns. In German. *shudder*

Yes, you start out with a low percentage of success, but given how unforgiving the damage system can be, you don't want to increase them arbitrarily. Combat would turn into a meaningless bloodbath... and besides, you don't want the PCs to get the idea that this "Hero" business is *easy* (trust me, this is important to the flavor of the game).

The lower percentages mean the PCs have to be more careful about picking their fights, forcing them to think about if a fight is worth the risk. When they do decide to fight, it forces them to be much more tactical about it. What advantage can you squeeze another +5% or +10% out of? Can you isolate the more dangerous combatants and get two-on-one or three-on-one? Can you save yourself a move action to get another +20% with an all-out attack?

It's not the size of your percentage that's important, it's what you do with it that matters. And when the fight ends and you're barely standing on a shattered ankle, shield-arm hanging by a thread, waiting to see if the blood loss still kills you... but you're still standing and the enemy isn't? Totally worth it.

misterk
2009-07-21, 06:25 PM
combat can be a little weak in wfrp- the main tactics are to try and outnumber your opponent and apply your bonuses. You will always get an aim action, so you'll be hitting at plus 10, or alternatively you can feint (and may want to later on). Damage is usually quite good- the bad guys starting characters face should have about 8-10 wounds and with 3-4 damage absorption, so they should go down after 3 hits (2 to clear the wounds, final one for a decent critical).

Kiero
2009-07-21, 06:29 PM
combat can be a little weak in wfrp- the main tactics are to try and outnumber your opponent and apply your bonuses. You will always get an aim action, so you'll be hitting at plus 10, or alternatively you can feint (and may want to later on). Damage is usually quite good- the bad guys starting characters face should have about 8-10 wounds and with 3-4 damage absorption, so they should go down after 3 hits (2 to clear the wounds, final one for a decent critical).

You won't be aiming or feinting if you have 2 or more attacks, which my Outlaw character had from the beginning.

Matthew
2009-07-21, 07:02 PM
Well, my brief WHFRP experience is relevant here.

My character's a Norse Berserker, and the only meleer of the group. As such, I was going to go with the more defensive option - shield, parrying, stacking armor, etc.

In our first combat, he went down hard and fast - one fate point down, one to go. Turns out, tanking is not a viable tactic in the system especially for a new character. In a system in which one or two hits can pretty easily kill or cripple you, the best defense is one-shotting the other guy first.

So I embraced my Berserkerness and started using a Halberd that we happened to get from that combat. I'm a far better tank with the option to use an Impact weapon (the Fast option is also potentially valuable, Halberds are pretty neat weapons) to deal lots of damage than I was actually trying to soak attacks. So now I just berserk and hope that I get lucky and they hit someplace with good armor, and that I one-shot them.

Another one of our members uses a net sometimes - that makes hitting targets immensely easier.

So, no, it's really not too difficult to hit in my opinion, considering that it's really easy to get taken down as a result of those hits.

Sounds reasonable. The halberd was a bit rubbish in 1e, so glad to hear that has been rectified in 2e.



I might consider it myself, once I get a decent hang on the rules.

Let us know how it works out for you!



The 2e version's got less WS and more Wounds.

Thought so. I should add out that Middenheim thugs are a good bit tougher than the average cultist or gangster in the sample adventure in the rulebook; their statistics are more like:

M 4, WS 33, S 3, T 3, W 5, I 30, A 1
Leather Jack

...and would typically be felled in one or two blows.



I think it gets better when combatants are stronger, though I'm not sure. But I do know that while I don't mind tough opponents taking a lot of rolls to down - I mean, plate armor is supposed to make you very hard to kill - but a combat between two inexperienced, weak combatants taking dozens of rolls and rerolls to resolve... it's a bit tedious.

Yeah, a hard line to walk I suppose. In their solution to the armour problem the designers seem to have overreacted to the potential deadliness of unarmoured combat.



Well, say my norse berserker advances all the way to Champion and maxes out his Toughness (and takes the +5% Toughness ability along the way) - that puts him at about 60% toughness, a TB of 6. Plate armor is 5 armor, meaning he would reduce a whopping 11 damage, 12 frenzied, at basically his mortal limit.

Now let's look at the damage he can do. Strength roughly parallels Toughness, though there are abilities that increase your damage above and beyond base strength (mind I'm talking about melee weapons - at best, ranged weapon damage pulls even with toughness defenses even with such abilities), let's just ignore them for now.

So we're basically looking at the variable damage for a weapon - 1d10, compared with an armor of 5. 1d10 averages out to 5.5, so you'd think it averages to pretty low damage, but for two things:

-10's. This might be a houserule in my group, but when you roll a 10 for damage, you roll another 1d10 and add them together. This means that 10% of connected hits are going to blow any armor out of the water, leading to a fair chance at an instant kill.

-Impact weapons. Now, Impact as far as I know is always balanced with either the Slow property (making attacks easier to parry) or the Tiring property (making it not very Impacty). But when an Impact weapon hits, it has much greater damage potential because you take the higher of 2d10 for your damage - and if either is a 10 (19% chance, I do believe), then you get the crazy-high damage scenario.

Now this is a houserule - our group ruled that a reroll of a 10 on an impact weapon itself benefits from impact (it might be that way RAW, but our DM didn't want to bother looking it up). My halberd's very very nice.

Oh, also, we were running hit locations, which made some hits pretty ugly.

Interesting. Probably the strongest character I ever saw maxed out at 6,000 EP, had a strength of 8, a toughness of 6, and 3 attacks. With plate armour his defence was 8, strike mighty blow and a two handed weapon meant 1d6+11 damage. On a 6 you would roll to hit again and if hit another 1d6 was added. The guy was stronger than the average dragon (strength 7) and could literally beat down an ogre (strength 5, toughness 4) with his bare hands.



Interestingly, in my group no one uses a two-handed weapon (well, the mage has a staff). The two main combatants have Str 40-ish and Strike Mighty Blow, the other is more of an archer than melee-ist.



Interesting- the general view of the community seems to be that two-handed weapons aren't worth it, because the Impact quality doesn't make up for the loss of the free parry. The player in my group who uses the halberd disagrees, and I've yet to make up my mind, but at present I'm inclined to agree with the community at large.

Yeah, that free parry has got to be tough to give up.



Bows don't suck quite as much as you might think. They do the same damage as a single attack by a first-career character, with none of the risks of melee combat. Take Rapid Reload, which any credible archer career offers, and you can always take the Aim action; after a few careers, once you've got a couple of attacks, Rapid Reload and Mighty Shot, you become a death machine.

Crossbows and guns suffer because of their increased reload time, but in reality I find characters with guns fire once, then engage in melee, partly because guns take so long to reload, but also because most careers which give access to firearm skills already offer potent melee options.

You know, I never noticed that in 1e bows have a reload time; I can see why we ignored that!



Two skilled, armoured combatants will take a long time, too. You'll get more hits, but you'll get more parries and dodges as well.

How many wounds can you end up with in 2e? I think it maxes out at about 15 in 1e.



And really bad puns. In German. *shudder*

I still remember the time I first noticed that! :smallbiggrin:

Deadmeat.GW
2009-07-22, 03:38 AM
With WHFRP the whole idea is to fight dishonestly if you can and avoid fighting if you can't at lower levels.

Use nets, throw sand in the eyes and so on to get the combat bonuses, distract enemies or stab them in the back. No dodging or parrying then...

But yes, the lower levels can be annoying if you are a bit unlucky.

However the Ulric's Fury is on pure 10 on the dice, there are things that increase this making the odds of Ulric's Fury a lot better. I.e. when you roll two dice and pick Ulric's Fury comes up a lot and things will die fast.

Also, if you are a low level character you are expected to run if you face something like a knight (advanced npc's in combat with other words) and you cannot get the drop on him or mug him.
Then there is the fortune points, at low levels these help a lot.

Check out Liber Fanatica for some nice fan-based extra stuff.
Soem of that stuff is straight from the play-testing we did when the game was under trial for second edition and are idea's they dropped due to place or other considerations.
The rest is pure fan stuff but tested in most cases extremely well with a whole bunch of testers.

http://www.liberfanatica.net/

EDIT: P.s. always use the Action, Action optional rule if your GM agrees, it speeds things up soo much. That extra half action means running actually is vaguely accurate for the distances and change the turns to 5 seconds instead as the turns are awfully long otherwise :).

Kiero
2009-07-22, 03:49 AM
How many wounds can you end up with in 2e? I think it maxes out at about 15 in 1e.

You can start with 12 or 13, and the best advance I've seen is +6, but I think there might be a +8.

misterk
2009-07-22, 05:39 AM
Kiero if your character has two attacks he should eat through his enemies pretty quickly. 2 attacks is generally quite nasty, even at the low ws levels. Armoured opponents in WFRP should be rare, because they are pretty nasty and lengthen combat- generally speaking you shouldn't be seeing more than damage soak 4, which means you should be doing 4.5 damage with each succesful hit.

lesser_minion
2009-07-22, 06:27 AM
From what I can tell, 1e was a little more heroic than 2e (where toughness was decisively toned down). 2e assumes a much slower advancement rate - 1e characters averaged about three times more experience (IIRC), and each advance counted for more than in 2e. 2e also effectively adds an intermediate tier of careers - you can't go directly from Outlaw to Outlaw Chief any more.

2e seems to have been written so that attacks/numbers are king in melee - as characters never gain more than one parry (I suspect most people houserule Lightning Parry to grant an extra one, as otherwise it is basically useless) and one dodge, it becomes insanely difficult to defend against a large number of hits.

I have to admit though, I find both editions to be a little free with their attack advances. "Is almost as good as two people in melee" was a little much.

You can manage no more than 20 wounds in 2e - I'm pretty sure the highest practical SB and TB are now only 6 (1e had a lot of careers with unique benefits which can't be reproduced readily in 2e - e.g. the Freelancer's strength bonus and the Assasin's extra attack.)

Morty
2009-07-22, 08:07 AM
Sounds reasonable. The halberd was a bit rubbish in 1e, so glad to hear that has been rectified in 2e.

To the point they'e kind of overpowered, I think. I mean, they can be used as two-handed weapons or spears at the user's leisure. And they're easier to get than two-handed weapons. Then again, given how very simple WFRP weapons are, it doesn't matter that much.
On another note, apart from using the Action, Action rule and Liber Fanatica - I'll be sure to check it out myself - I'd suggest using the Sudden Death rule for enemies in most combats. This way, you avoid rolling critical hits for them and you have a bigger chance of simply killing them.

Kiero
2009-07-22, 08:25 AM
On another note, apart from using the Action, Action rule and Liber Fanatica - I'll be sure to check it out myself - I'd suggest using the Sudden Death rule for enemies in most combats. This way, you avoid rolling critical hits for them and you have a bigger chance of simply killing them.

It also saves on tedium when it comes to mooks who won't die because you haven't rolled enough high enough on successive critical hits.

Matthew
2009-07-22, 09:24 AM
You can start with 12 or 13, and the best advance I've seen is +6, but I think there might be a +8.

That sounds about right. In 1e you start with up to 7 or 8 and can advance by up to +8.



From what I can tell, 1e was a little more heroic than 2e (where toughness was decisively toned down). 2e assumes a much slower advancement rate - 1e characters averaged about three times more experience (IIRC), and each advance counted for more than in 2e. 2e also effectively adds an intermediate tier of careers - you can't go directly from Outlaw to Outlaw Chief any more.

I think it is probably true to say the rewards came quicker in 1e, which mainly increases survivability. The normal rate of advancement was supposed to be 100 EP (or one advancement) per session. So, to get 6,000 EP (which fills out the career path: Templar, ex-Freelance, ex-Noble, ex-Mercenary Captain, ex-Mercenary Sergeant, ex-Mercenary) required 60 sessions of 4-6 hours.



2e seems to have been written so that attacks/numbers are king in melee - as characters never gain more than one parry (I suspect most people houserule Lightning Parry to grant an extra one, as otherwise it is basically useless) and one dodge, it becomes insanely difficult to defend against a large number of hits.

It does seem that way.



I have to admit though, I find both editions to be a little free with their attack advances. "Is almost as good as two people in melee" was a little much.

Attack increases are definitely the quickest way to gain combat effectiveness in 1e.



You can manage no more than 20 wounds in 2e - I'm pretty sure the highest practical SB and TB are now only 6 (1e had a lot of careers with unique benefits which can't be reproduced readily in 2e - e.g. the Freelancer's strength bonus and the Assasin's extra attack.)

Yeah, Duellist/Outlaw Chief (+3 T), Freelancer (+3 S) and Assassin (+3 A) are desirable Advanced Careers. About three quarters of the others have a +40 advancement somewhere, or in the case of the Templar +8 wounds.



To the point they're kind of overpowered, I think. I mean, they can be used as two-handed weapons or spears at the user's leisure. And they're easier to get than two-handed weapons. Then again, given how very simple WFRP weapons are, it doesn't matter that much.

Right; in 1e the halberd has the benefits and drawbacks of a spear (except throwing) and a two-handed weapon, but also −10% WS. That made for a pretty tough sell, especially given that it is a specialist weapon.



It also saves on tedium when it comes to mooks who won't die because you haven't rolled enough high enough on successive critical hits.

Mooks down to 0 wounds should surely be running away! :smallbiggrin:

pasko77
2009-07-22, 10:48 AM
However the Ulric's Fury is on pure 10 on the dice, there are things that increase this making the odds of Ulric's Fury a lot better. I.e. when you roll two dice and pick Ulric's Fury comes up a lot and things will die fast.

Check out Liber Fanatica for some nice fan-based extra stuff.
Soem of that stuff is straight from the play-testing we did when the game was under trial for second edition and are idea's they dropped due to place or other considerations.
The rest is pure fan stuff but tested in most cases extremely well with a whole bunch of testers.

http://www.liberfanatica.net/

EDIT: P.s. always use the Action, Action optional rule if your GM agrees, it speeds things up soo much. That extra half action means running actually is vaguely accurate for the distances and change the turns to 5 seconds instead as the turns are awfully long otherwise :).

Thanks for the link, i will surely check it in the weekend.

As for Ulric's fury, we use a subpar version of it: on a 10 you roll an additional d6. This avoids the flattening of a fight between a good fighter and a lucky inept. What's the point in being good at something if you need a critical (which has the same frequency) to pass through an armor?

As i can see, in this forum the general opinion is divided between "yes, at low level it is actually boring" and "if you tweak it it will become too much deadly".

But, i can't help being annoyed by:
1) when you have 2 attacks, you magically lose every previously used tactic (aim, feign, etc) because it becomes subpar with respect to the full attack.

2) the elven archer will always miss a still, flat-footed target 1/3 of the time (please don't tell me to DM fiat a coup de grace, i know it but i don't like to have to resort to this)

3) 2 grunts against each other will miss 2/3 of the time.

Anyone shares these concerns?
I will check the aforementioned link for some houserule.

Aedilred
2009-07-22, 12:03 PM
1) when you have 2 attacks, you magically lose every previously used tactic (aim, feign, etc) because it becomes subpar with respect to the full attack.
This is the most egregious problem with the combat rules. I think most groups use some sort of house rule to make some of the other options (specifically, Charge and All-Out Attack) worth using.

2) the elven archer will always miss a still, flat-footed target 1/3 of the time (please don't tell me to DM fiat a coup de grace, i know it but i don't like to have to resort to this)
The idea of being flat-footed doesn't really exist in the same way as it does in D&D. If you're unable to defend yourself for whatever reason, though, all melee attacks hit automatically- I can't remember whether ranged attacks are specifically exempted, but either way it wouldnt' be a hard thing to houserule.


3) 2 grunts against each other will miss 2/3 of the time.
This is one of the appeals of the system for me, actually. It's rare that anyone gets such a good chance to hit that they won't think twice about initiating the combat. This is another way in which WFRP differs from D&D- if the PCs wade into every combat they have a chance of entering, they will die, fast.

If one of the aforementioned mooks wants to increase his chances to hit, of course, he can go for an All-Out Attack which gives him that +20% bonus to hit, not to be sniffed at. It does mean he forfeits his chance to defend himself though, so is it worth the risk?

If the two mooks sit there and make Guarded Attacks at each other, or for that matter Standard Attack/Parrying Stances over and over again, then yes, it'll go on for a long time, but the players are having no input into things-they're just waiting for the dice to come up in their favour without doing anything to increase the chances of success.

only1doug
2009-07-22, 01:08 PM
From what I can tell, 1e was a little more heroic than 2e (where toughness was decisively toned down). 2e assumes a much slower advancement rate - 1e characters averaged about three times more experience (IIRC), and each advance counted for more than in 2e. 2e also effectively adds an intermediate tier of careers - you can't go directly from Outlaw to Outlaw Chief any more.

true, advancing in 2e is slower at a given rate of xp earned.


2e seems to have been written so that attacks/numbers are king in melee - as characters never gain more than one parry (I suspect most people houserule Lightning Parry to grant an extra one, as otherwise it is basically useless) and one dodge, it becomes insanely difficult to defend against a large number of hits.

we certainly did rule in lightning parry as additional parries


I have to admit though, I find both editions to be a little free with their attack advances. "Is almost as good as two people in melee" was a little much.

2e evens it up slightly by limiting your action options if using multiple attacks but yes, it is every fighting PC's first choice advance.


You can manage no more than 20 wounds in 2e - I'm pretty sure the highest practical SB and TB are now only 6 (1e had a lot of careers with unique benefits which can't be reproduced readily in 2e - e.g. the Freelancer's strength bonus and the Assasin's extra attack.)


very extreme example of max SB and TB

a dwarf can start with 30+2d10 T (max 50) and 20+2d10 S (max 40) add very strong and/or very resilient for starting TB of 5 and SB of 4.
Daemon Slayer (dwarf slayer career pinacle) offers advance scheme of +30% in both S and T, resulting in TB 8, SB 7 (+1 stike mighty blow)

add in players putting their best rolls (double 10) into their key stats and clerics casting a +5% stat buff and you can see TB9, SB8 in play.

Myrmex
2009-07-22, 01:20 PM
Of course, combat is not really the main focus of WHFRP, so you may be having a bit of an expectation issue.

That's not very orky.

pasko77
2009-07-22, 02:40 PM
The idea of being flat-footed doesn't really exist in the same way as it does in D&D. If you're unable to defend yourself for whatever reason, though, all melee attacks hit automatically- I can't remember whether ranged attacks are specifically exempted, but either way it wouldnt' be a hard thing to houserule.

Uh?
I must have lost this rule. In this case, we can decide some set of situational modifiers to apply, i suppose.



That's not very orky.

That's the point. I cannot avoid to focus on combat.

Aedilred
2009-07-22, 03:10 PM
I must have lost this rule. In this case, we can decide some set of situational modifiers to apply, i suppose.
When you're helpless, opponents' attacks hit automatically; I can't quote a page number as I don't have the book here, but it's somewhere in the combat chapter (possibly in the critical hits section?) It mentions elsewhere that the "to-hit" roll assumes that the opponent is defending himself to some degree.


That's the point. I cannot avoid to focus on combat.
Then you're probably going to have to get used to the PCs dying frequently, to be honest. Combat in WFRP is meant to be a last resort, thus the rules make it an unattractive option.

pasko77
2009-07-22, 03:58 PM
Then you're probably going to have to get used to the PCs dying frequently, to be honest. Combat in WFRP is meant to be a last resort, thus the rules make it an unattractive option.

Never said the opposite. Players already are at their second incarnation (for a notable exception of the savage orc with a two-handed weapon).

only1doug
2009-07-22, 04:08 PM
Then you're probably going to have to get used to the PCs dying frequently, to be honest. Combat in WFRP is meant to be a last resort, thus the rules make it an unattractive option.

I'd have to disagree, I've played in extensive combat heavy campaigns in both editions, it is possible for combat orientated groups to survive, they just need to plan their fights well and know when to fight and when to run away.

In a 1e game I was playing, one of the dwarfs decided to go to the minataur fights and fought bare-knuckled (match was a draw, called off due to explosion in dwarven quarter, dwarf would of been winning if she could roll dice a bit better).

A previous 2e game our group consisted of a Knight (initially Militiaman), Duellist (initially Noble), Priest L3, Targeteer (initially roadwarden), Wizard L2 (initially scribe) (characters had about 4200 exp spent). Combat was frequent and brutal, we would tend to concentrate our attacks on one target at a time unless facing hordes of weak monsters.

Deadmeat.GW
2009-07-23, 03:14 AM
Thanks for the link, i will surely check it in the weekend.

As for Ulric's fury, we use a subpar version of it: on a 10 you roll an additional d6. This avoids the flattening of a fight between a good fighter and a lucky inept. What's the point in being good at something if you need a critical (which has the same frequency) to pass through an armor?

As i can see, in this forum the general opinion is divided between "yes, at low level it is actually boring" and "if you tweak it it will become too much deadly".

But, i can't help being annoyed by:
1) when you have 2 attacks, you magically lose every previously used tactic (aim, feign, etc) because it becomes subpar with respect to the full attack.

2) the elven archer will always miss a still, flat-footed target 1/3 of the time (please don't tell me to DM fiat a coup de grace, i know it but i don't like to have to resort to this)

3) 2 grunts against each other will miss 2/3 of the time.

Anyone shares these concerns?
I will check the aforementioned link for some houserule.

Ah, that first bit is one of the reasons you are having trouble. Yes if you get hit by Ulric's Fury it hurts a lot but...it does mean that fighters (with Impact type weapons) tend to flatten with one hit most low level opponents you end up facing. Even if you miss two out of three attacks when that one attack means the enemy goes down combat changes dramatically.

1) As for the two attacks are better then 1...again there is the tactical situation to consider. Do you want the +10% from an aimed shot (keep in mind that Action, Action is simply a lot better for game play as it speeds things up a lot and allows people to run quickly to each others aid if needed plus a whole host of other things like making spell-casting saver or possible in combat...) and doing a single attack for something like 50% chance to hit on a melee combatant or do you want two attacks at 40%?
Do you keep in mind circumstance bonuses? These are the bread and butter of any successful melee combatant in WHFRP, you need to create the potential for those as much as possible. Tripping up the other guy so that the other guy in the party gets to take him out, attack him from behind so that you take both dodge and parry out of the equation (and incidentally if he is unaware or preoccupied by your allies to the front provides you with to hit bonuses which can ramp up to +30% or more to hit meaning you could push your chances to hit to 80% or better if he gets knocked prone)...
And this is with 40% WS which is quite feasible for a melee fighter in WHFRP.
You can easily run around with 50% WS on your second career path as a melee.

2) Here there is three BIG things you need to keep in mind, ranged attacks firstly allow no parry (you can hide behind a shield or cover but no parrying). The BASIC rules for ANY skill tests give provisions for bonuses, that Elven archer has his basic BS when shooting at people who are moving around in a standard wary manner in combat and not trying to do anything to make themselves either more difficult or easier to hit (like say highlighting themselves against a hill) so a still, flat-footed target should be an EASY target for any archer meaning you get a 30% bonus to hit, which means an archer with 35% BS (not really that great for a archery based character but nice enough) will have 75% chance to hit without aiming... Add in aiming and this goes up even further. And all of this at starting level.
Don't forget that WS and BS is set up as it is to represent more then a single attack but a series of feints and swings in which both sides do their best not to get hit or to not get shot.

3) Yes and no, it depends on how much risk you are willing to take. If your grunt feels like taking a risk he could charge in with wild swings, representing the fact that a lot of people who have no skill at fighting actually leave themselves open a lot of the time. We get then a scenario in which they hit over 50% of the time and that means combat should (given some average dicerolls, I know that does not always happen but still...) over in the space of 5 to 6 rounds (50 to 60 seconds under the normal time frame or 25 to 30 seconds if you halve the rounds to something that makes the movement rules work better and does not make the fights sound so very long).

Killing someone when you are equally skilled (or unskilled in this case) in 25 to 30 seconds is pretty fast when you take into account this goes out from the idea that both sides are aware of each and on equal footing.
I do agree that the 50 to 60 seconds duration for the same fight might feel a bit long but the playtesters did point this out but we never really had a reply on our question nor on our suggestion to half the round duration to 5 seconds.

Kiero
2009-07-23, 03:32 AM
My Outlaw-Veteran presently has WS 53 (four advances) and has had two attacks since the beginning of the game. Strength and Toughness of 41 and Strike Mighty Blow, which all make him much more survivable in combat.

The dwarf Mercenary-Sergeant is even tougher. We've got an elf Kithband Warrior-Scout who's a sniper with a bow (BS in the 60s), and almost impossible to hit if he can dodge (Dodge Blow in the 70s).

We stopped playing purely cravenly a while ago, and to be honest my character has never behaved as though he was fragile. If a risk is worth taking, you take it.

misterk
2009-07-23, 03:36 AM
A good archer should have a bs in the 40s, will have sharpshooter, which will give aim +20, and then an unmoving unaware opponent gives another +30. Thats a 10% chance of failure....