May I assume you haven't adopted 4E as of yet? I will say that while our group didn't feel whiffing was on the top list of 2E weaknesses (mainly because we didn't play by the rules as written - when it came to general skill use we more or less reinterpreted the rolls using an informal unstated bonus) I can see how a player can wonder how the game is even playable - especially if you come from a tradition of actually competent starting characters (like in many other games).Graak wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:09 amIn my games we don't feel whiff factor as a problem to be fair, but I can see it can be one. Having said this, did anyone tried so simply rise %values by 10 or 20 in the entire game (PCs, NPC, monsters...)? Could this solve the whiff problem?
I'm saying this because there are enough modifiers in these editions (1,2 and 4th) without bothering tracking Advantage too! Having to do that it's simply madness imho.
No, you got it backwards . Opposed rolls (such as most combat-related Tests) have no inherent modifier (though combat rolls are frequently modified anyway - you could be fatigued or outnumbered or whatever).
I don't disagree with this, combat would be better if all class-types had access to cool abilities imo.Orin J. wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:56 amThat means more that the other combat systems need to be reworked rather than restricting the magical system to being anti-fun, magnus. if the only way to balance magic against the rest of combat is to make people not want to use it, then the entire system is faulty.
Generally I find this reasonable.
I strongly agree with this.CapnZapp wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:50 am
What I strongly dislike is making every interaction into an opposed roll. That simply is unworkable in my opinion. Not to mention how rolling twice instead of once makes the roll MUCH more swingy. Let me rephrase: mandating that every NPC should make a roll to determine the difficulty of the Charm, Gossip or Persuasion roll effectively means to make the task difficulty essentially random. That is not good design in my book.
Second this too!Orin J. wrote: I don't think opposed rolls are bad. but opposed rolls with a percentile di(c)e is a recipe for trouble and that should have washed out in the blind playtesting they seemingly chose not to do. Between their overuse of opposed rolling with a bad dice system for it, an excessive system of gaming advantage bonuses and a lack of proper balance instruction, 4th has significant teething problems and i don't think it was honestly ready for publishing. still there's good ideas to poach from it if you put in the work.
The main reason: my players love the new careers and XP advancement system (much more than I do)
I'm curious to know what it is that you ( all ) think is a recipe for trouble about putting percentile di(c)e together with opposed rolls. I'm developing a system that does just that and, though the way in which the rolls are opposed in the system i'm developing is different to the way in which they are opposed in WFRP 4th edition, this is one of the few things about WFRP 4th edition that i think i like, at least at 'first glance'. Is it the particular combination of percentile di(c)e and opposed rolls that appears in WFRP 4th edition, or is it any such combination that you ( all ) find troublesome?
Users browsing this forum: Graak and 3 guests