Combat question and -ve SL

Marty_Jopson · Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:05 am

So we just started using the 4e WFRP rules and playing Death on the Reik (DotR) - we played through Bögenhafen using Genesys rules which was interesting, but ultimately not right for the setting (and tangential to this question). We bumbled through the first combat in DotR and aside from completely forgetting Advantage, the main question was this:

A player was attacking an opponent (no spoilers

), they rolled poorly and achieved a -1SL (success level). The opponent rolled even worse and achieved -3SL. My understanding is that even though the player "failed" their roll (-ve SL), since the opponent rolled worse and this is an opposed test, overall this result counts as a success. In which case damage was dealt to the opponent equal to "weapon damage" + "strength bonus" + 2 (the difference in SL, -1 minus -3).

Is this correct? It seems a bit weird. I fail a roll but - oh look - the opponent fails worse, trips and falls onto my sword. Which does seem kind WFRP to me.

Hyarion · Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:00 am

Yup, as far as I know, that's correct.

Orin J. · Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:11 am

This is correct, with the exception that you STILL failed the actual check for other purposes so if you rolled doubles you still fumbled.

it feels a bit counter-intuitive but you've got it.

Shambler · Sat Aug 01, 2020 12:21 pm

Huh, we never thought of adding the negative SL (or the difference between the two failed rolls) as damage...

Orin J. · Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:12 pm

Shambler wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 12:21 pm Huh, we never thought of adding the negative SL (or the difference between the two failed rolls) as damage...

according to the book you're supposed to add the difference you win by to the damage.

personally i was going with adding either your roll modifier or the difference to the rolls to the damage (whichever is closer to positive), so if you roll -1SLs and the other guy rolls -3SLs, it's -1 to damage (you nicked 'em) but if you roll -3SLs and the other guy somehow gets -5SLs, you've got -2 to damage (your -3 subtracts their -5 to -2, the better result). bit messy, but the whole combat of 4ed is already a disaster and i feel like if two people who can't hit are fumbling over each other it should just be a bunch of nicks and bruises instead of anything decisive.

Marty_Jopson · Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:59 pm

Hum. Not sure I follow you. The difference between a winning of -1 and losing of -3 is the same as the difference between winning -3 and losing of -5. Notably +2. Hence you won by 2 SL so do +2 damage (+SB +weapon damage). The difference is always positive. It can only be negative if you roll fewer (or more negative) SL than the opponent in which case you don’t hit.

Orin J. · Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:24 pm

Marty_Jopson wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:59 pm Hum. Not sure I follow you. The difference between a winning of -1 and losing of -3 is the same as the difference between winning -3 and losing of -5. Notably +2. Hence you won by 2 SL so do +2 damage (+SB +weapon damage). The difference is always positive. It can only be negative if you roll fewer (or more negative) SL than the opponent in which case you don’t hit.

RAW, it is always positive. i was going to use a house rule that allowed for negative damage modifiers when both sides are in negative numbers, before my group laughed the new edition of the game off the table.

SigmariteOrWrong · Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:35 pm

An important note is that SL bonuses from Talents only kick in when the roll was a success.

We have a PC with three levels of Dirty Fighting. It's a Very powerful talent, adding both +1SL and +1 Damage hit each level. He doesn't fail that often on a success, but when he does he misses out on 6 extra damage from his dirty blows.

Robin · Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:59 am

Orin J. wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:24 pm
Marty_Jopson wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:59 pm Hum. Not sure I follow you. The difference between a winning of -1 and losing of -3 is the same as the difference between winning -3 and losing of -5. Notably +2. Hence you won by 2 SL so do +2 damage (+SB +weapon damage). The difference is always positive. It can only be negative if you roll fewer (or more negative) SL than the opponent in which case you don’t hit.
RAW, it is always positive. i was going to use a house rule that allowed for negative damage modifiers when both sides are in negative numbers, before my group laughed the new edition of the game off the table.

Based on my extremely limited experience (I've read the rules) I can tolerate the rules as written, but I like the idea of a negative modifier for damage more. It just supports the idea that the successful attack was based on the opponent failing more rather than an especially skillful flurry of blades. "Aye, I slew the beast, but 'twas good fortune rather than my skill with the blade. I wore it down. I never scored a mighty blow."

I do like opposed rolls and success based on the best success or the least failed. It gets away from the old criticisms of earlier editions where fail after fail results in combat that drags.

Regards,
Robin

Shambler · Mon Aug 03, 2020 2:48 am

Ha, this thread has got me thinking (thanks for that!) and I'll present your findings to our group.

Yepesnopes · Tue Aug 04, 2020 8:03 am

Marty_Jopson wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:05 am So we just started using the 4e WFRP rules and playing Death on the Reik (DotR) - we played through Bögenhafen using Genesys rules which was interesting, but ultimately not right for the setting (and tangential to this question). We bumbled through the first combat in DotR and aside from completely forgetting Advantage, the main question was this:

A player was attacking an opponent (no spoilers ), they rolled poorly and achieved a -1SL (success level). The opponent rolled even worse and achieved -3SL. My understanding is that even though the player "failed" their roll (-ve SL), since the opponent rolled worse and this is an opposed test, overall this result counts as a success. In which case damage was dealt to the opponent equal to "weapon damage" + "strength bonus" + 2 (the difference in SL, -1 minus -3).

Is this correct? It seems a bit weird. I fail a roll but - oh look - the opponent fails worse, trips and falls onto my sword. Which does seem kind WFRP to me.

If you like the Genesys system, there is a fantastic fan made adaption of it for Warhammer 40k, which includes rules for inanities and mutations. You may take those for Warhammer Fantasy Genesys

Marty_Jopson · Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:17 pm

I am indeed a fan of the Genesys system - at least in so much as I played a bunch of Star Wars (which is basically the same). However - I ran Enemy in Shadows using Genesys and I struggled. The default power level for Genesys is way higher than WFRP. So rather than having the players fight two thugs, you need to chuck eight at them. I also should have nerfed the magic system more as the party wizard was a killing machine. I figured given the nature of the scenario - mostly investigative - it didn’t make a huge amount of difference.
Interestingly the biggest issue I had was motivation for the characters. At several points they were asking why they were getting involved. I think starting Genesys characters (using the mod of the game I had concocted) were so powerful, there were other options they could have pursued. Conversely, WFRP characters are so feeble they have fewer options.

Orin J. · Tue Aug 04, 2020 8:33 pm

Marty_Jopson wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:17 pm Interestingly the biggest issue I had was motivation for the characters. At several points they were asking why they were getting involved. I think starting Genesys characters (using the mod of the game I had concocted) were so powerful, there were other options they could have pursued. Conversely, WFRP characters are so feeble they have fewer options.

Honestly, it's the core issue with TEW.....there's a handful of points through the books where you're effectively going through with the plotline because "well, we've gone with the books so far, right?" and it's kind of a very dated adventure. not that that's bad, just a product of th time it was made in....