Hello: I'm new to the forum and to WFRP 4e.
My players (all D&D veterans) really appreciated the 'roll under' mechanic: especially the 'dry' roll under .... if you do less than your ability score you succeed otherwise you don't.
Easy to understand why: it's faster than D&D where you have to do sums .... here only comparisons between numbers are involved which are instantaneous.
However, when it was necessary to determine the level of success .... they didn't turn up their noses but, I noticed, they let me do the calculations.
Not that it's difficult to determine the level of success but the subtraction of the tens digits is a little annoying.
The same manual offers an alternative but I don't like it: I come up with an alternative of my own and I'm looking for comments from those who have used the game well.
My alternative is simply the following:
The level of success is equal to the number of units which decides, in short, how extreme the result is.
Example: skill 63, roll result 48... level 8 success. (if both succeed, the higher level wins)
skill 63, roll result 72... level 2 failure. (if both fail, the lower level wins)
So there's no math to do: does it break the game in any way? Is there some special talent/ability it conflicts with?
SL house rule
It won't "Break The Game" to use the one's digit, but it may lead to wierd results when doing contested rolls (especially because SL's are now a part of the damage calculation). The core rulebook has an optional rule for Fast SL's which you may want to look up.
I hold the glaive of Law against the Earth.
With levels of success, if you simply take the first digit of the roll (or first digit +1), you have the same probability distribution as with the official method. It may have a small psychological disadvantage - with the official rule, the lower you roll, the better, with this adaptation you have to roll high, but under your target number.
Now, if you want to compute levels of failure, that is a different kettle of fish. There is no shortcut for that - not one that I know of, anyway.
Now, if you want to compute levels of failure, that is a different kettle of fish. There is no shortcut for that - not one that I know of, anyway.