Necrozius said:

I assume that you parce out your defenses over the combat. Assumeing you have more then 1 defense available to you. Dodge, next round parry, and if you have block and a shield ,block on the following round. If the melee is still going by this time yer set to dodge again...

Not a bad system, but it is pretty rote, in more challangeing melees it might force  PC's to be a little more tactically aware. When faceing multiple or a single major threat , do you waste all your defenses in a round or hold off on them and  for the best?

And those with 1 defense (is it possible to start with zero?)  are pretty screwed....

Looks nice and fairly straightforward to me.

I'm willing to give the cooldown system a chance as I think it has the potential to make the players (and the GM) think a bit more about strategy in combat rather than just whacking away (or constantly using the most damaging power they have).

And example roll of an average attack vs. an average foe would be nice though - to give an idea of how easy it is to hit and how much damage it will do so we can gauge how long potential fights may last (if using only standard attacks ofcourse).

42!

42! said:

I've got a hunch that folks may be seeing something like this in Combat Training 103 or 104... :)

ynnen said:

Hehe - very nice.

ynnen said:

Oooo, teaser!

I am against game talk.
In RPGs that is.
It ruins the storytelling.

In V1, we had: charge, winning/losing, attack, parry, dodge, grapple, wrestle, jump, leap, strike to stun, as basic physical actions in combat.

In V2, it got worse: guarded attack, all-out attack, swift attack, defensive stance, parrying stance, standard attack, charge, feint, manœuvre, dodge...

But at least, the labels for different actions were pretty much plain english an simple, as to be used in a normal sentence. "I take a defensive stance and side-step to the door."

In V3, we'll get things like Hard Glare, or Reaping Cleave, or Jumping Nervous Hiccupy Slash or whatnot.

Now that is not good for RPGs. What kind of description can survive the ridicule of such labels ! It also limits the imagination to these prefab special actions instead of prompting player inventiveness.

I liked all diaries up to now... This one really gets me down. Not sure I'll be buying this game. I'll need to get a full copy of available actions first. If that is the future of gaming, imagination wise, I'm really vexed.

The main problem with computer games is just that, they crush imagination and creativity. They stress the capacity to understand and optimise systems and reward precision of execution.

RPGs, on the other hand, is the only hobby that is entirely devoted to the imagination, creativity and inventiveness of players. Just as make believe is a great social development tool for kids, RPGs can act as a mind boost for people who are lacking opportunities to express their imagination in their jobs and day to day life.

This V3 is more more looking like a no-brainer rulesfest to me. 

wow!! very cool system so far...really like the recharge thing.....very cool!!! its a a great idea because in DnD once you use an "ecounter" power....you gata wait for the encounter to finish....so you could be stuck with just basic if your better attacks fail.....in this..if the combat drags on you could get that devistating attack back and take a second wack at it.....i really really like this system!!!!

dvang said:

Some good points here Dvang, but let me explain a little more in depth.  I absolutely agree that this is gaming and not simulation.  However, RPG'S employ reality to limit the times when system influences a game.  Conversely, they use reality as the basis of when also to use system (those moments when it isn't clear if a character can do something or how its done, the system exists to arbitrate those moments. 

So lets take a step back from WFRP 3e and say somebody writes a roleplaying game where you have to make a check to open doors and climb stairs.  Just try that on, maybe actually run it one night and tell your players, "tonight, you guys have to make strength checks to open normal, unlocked, unbarred doors and Agility checks to climb stairs."  I'm sure it will be aggravating as people botch door openings so they can't get into the inn, as they slip and fall down stairs constantly, etc.  

Why this example is so important is because this is a time when the system has not only over-shadowed roleplaying (and the narrative) it has directly violated the "reality" of actions, of how simple opening doors can be.  So you take actions such as Parry that can only be used every other turn or backstab that you have to wait four turns before you can use it again, and here, reality falls apart.  

What great RPG design does, in my opinion, is give you a "simulated reality" feel, using the contract of agreeable circumstances and then applying a mechanic to execute that "reality."  The Parry from 2e is a good example of that, you can parry once per round.  You can use swift attack every round as long as you meet the requirements.  They give a feel of reality, but not reality itself.  When I was last running 2e I ran it this way:  everybody gets a free parry per turn.  If you have an additional hand weapon, this gives you another free parry (be it at a -20% unless they had a Talent to remove offhand penalties).  This made for really dynamic combats where players really felt the impact of self defense and they even, intuitively, started defending each other with their parry actions.  They loved it.  It also increased the notion (especially when fighting hordes) of being overrun, and still enforced the notion of conserving parries or using parries to get where they wanted to be or do what they wanted to do without having to increase the number of arbitrary mechanics that forces limitations, which recharge does.  

So yes, card recharge will add some cinematic elements, such as this turn I parry, next I dodge, the following I block, okay parry is recharged so now I start the cycle over again, parry, dodge, block.  Honestly, even though they will operate with minor differences (parry gives 1 misfortune while block may give 2) ultimately, they are the same ability:  My ability to defend myself against attacks.  So instead of the elegant simplicity of 1 parry per round, you are dealing with a clunkier 3 phase dodge parry block mechanism that requires keeping track of recharges, etc.  

The same will be applied to combat attacks as well.  You will have super smash, moderate smash, and light smash.  Well, again, the cycle will occur over and over again.  

Don't get me wrong, I love the cards.  I do.  But I think what would have been more ingenious is rewarding certain maneuvers with additional benefits.  Light smash does less direct damage, but may ignore armor soak.  Super Smash drops behemouth amounts of damage, but risks causing fatigue.  Moderate Damage does strong damage, but gives your opponents a fortune die to hit you back.  You see?  So player choices instead of waiting for a card to recharge has to make choices based on circumstances (which is what real tactics are all about).  Using my examples above:  Fighting an armored guy, hit him with light attacks.  Oh, he's really tough too, so I'll give him a super smash, but I can only due that three or four times before I fatigue out), so this had better work.  Oh, that didn't so now I'm going to my moderate smashy cards at him, because I'm tired and light smash is not enough to get around him.  With each card having its own unique functions and making sure they are distinct enough gives the player more control and more choices during a combat turn, without having to resort to an arbitrary recharge system.   

What excites me about the Warhammer system is all the ways this sort of system could be expressed in their mechanic.  Wanna super-smash, better be at 3 reckless, but drains a fatigue.  Wanna moderate smash, well it lowers stance meter by x.  You see?  Their is so many ways they could have used the details they have already created without having to result to new ones.  Grant it, these examples might not be the best, but I haven't played the system to be clear on how they could have worked. 

As another way it could have worked there could have been a system where instead of actions exhausting the character becomes exhausted from using their actions would have been better.  Here's an example.  You can lose x amount of fatigue before you start feeling ill effects.  Each action causes fatigue equal to a number (parry 2 and backstab 4 for example).  So you use parry take 2 fatigue.  Each time you do take another 2 fatigue.  Once you reach your fatigue threshold, you become fatigued and take a penalty.  It's a quick glance and I don't have time to detail it any further than that, but it would have been a great system that utilizes the same notion of limited numbers of uses without banning powers while they arbitrarily recharge. 

One final point on this, the cards also make this notion a reality SOOO much easier to have happen than rulebooks because the card can quickly and effectively explain all the system function of that one ability without having to write it down or reference books. Every system since the mid-90's have included some form of tactical attacks in combat. (Heck, white wolf published a whole book of them). Why they were rarely used is no-one really knew how all of them worked or that most of them even existed. So they got ignored. Cards make them a quick and easy reality and can be limited very effectively by the numbers of cards known.

This is why it's sort of disappointing to me, because I can easily come up with two, great alternate systems.  Warhammer has broken ground in a number of ways with this new system, I guess I just wanted something more for combat mechanics rather than an MMO emulator.  Don't get me wrong, the game still sounds great, I'm just disappointed in this one aspect of it. 

Definitely some interesting ideas, commoner.

See, I have never thought about the Dodge/Parry reactions as being only those actions. Part of your attack respresented by your to-hit roll, is your opponent defending themselves (whether it is by dodging or parrying). Hence the reason it is easier to hit someone prone/held/stunned/etc. Those account for 'normal' defensives against every attack. Parry/Dodge reactions are an extra effort made by the defender to REALLY attempt to avoid a hit. They were not designed to realistically represent the only time you parry/dodge. I don't see giving extra free parries and dodges as doing anything but making combat slower and less deadly, since everyone gets extra defense actions that require no thought. The way the 2e system (and the system in 3e) the player has to make a choice of when to use their defensive reaction. Do they use their one reaction to avoid the blow from this underling, or do they save it in case the boss manages to hit. By giving extra defense, there is no choice. They'll just parry both of them because I can.

Parry can only be used with a melee weapon, and in melee. Block can only be used if you have a shield.I believe both will probably require 3+ Strength. Dodge can only be used if you have a 3+ Agi probably. Thus a) not everyone will necessarily be able to use all 3 defensive actions, depending on their wielded equipment and stats. Second, they run off of differnt skill (probably) for effects (like Parry gives an extra die with WS trained. Agi and block probably add a die for different skills, or give different effects). Third, you can use multiple defenses in a round, and even on the same attack. It requires much more thought on the player's part when to use these defenses, because they can't use them every round. If you let them use them every round, you make them brainless and dumbed down.

but I think what would have been more ingenious is rewarding certain maneuvers with additional benefits. Light smash does less direct damage, but may ignore armor soak. Super Smash drops behemouth amounts of damage, but risks causing fatigue. Moderate Damage does strong damage, but gives your opponents a fortune die to hit you back. You see?...

What makes you think that every action in WFRP 3e is the same? I'm betting that in 3e it works just like what you said here: light smash does less damage but ignores armor soak, super does lots of damage but can fatigue you, etc. I don't know why you think it's otherwise? Look at the backstab card.  I bet there isn't another action that has those exact same effects.  The only difference in 3e is that, if you see a heavily armored opponent you can't just use that ignore armor light smash over and over. You have to mix your attacks up because of recharge. Again, the player needs to tactically think about which action he/she uses and when. More thought, less mindlessness. Good in my book.

Now, some of your suggestions do look good. However, none of them appear to be any better than the current recharge (IMO, of course). I particularly like the idea that the recharge system forces players to think tactically and mix up their actions from round to round. I do think your fatigue suggestion is particularly interesting, but it doesn't seem to cause players to think as much as the recharge. Assuming a reasonable threshold, a player could still spam a low-fatigue cost attack over and over until combat ends. In WFRP 3e, that is limited with recharge, so maybe that "low-cost" attack can only be used every other round. It also seems to make a more realistic flow of combat. Rarely do swordsmen or martial artists use the same attack over and over. They test, they probe, they try different moves to catch their opponents off-guard and occasionally using a previous move again.

This is why it's sort of disappointing to me, because I can easily come up with two, great alternate systems.

Well, one (fatigue cost) is far better than the other, since the other one sounds practically like 3e without the recharge costs. And 3e's recharge, IMO is better than both of them. Regardless, though, the point is that the recharge system doesn't seem bad or unworkable. There will always be different system with different ways of doing things. Most of them are just as good as others. I can come up with a different and workable alternate combat system for any RPG I decide to play. Just because I can come up with these alternate ideas, doesn't mean that the one in the rules is poor or unworkable, or that it needs to be replaced.
 

I see where you're coming from Dvang and argue it well, but let me make a slight clarification. 

What is so bad about a trained soldier who knows how to get around armor spamming the same attack?  Wouldn't he try it at every opportunity he gets?  Wouldn't he constantly do it rather than hit hard.  I mean if you come to a fight with a sword, a knife, and a machine gun, which one's are you going to use?  You'll spam the machine gun till its out of ammo, go down to the sword next...if and only if that breaks or you're disarmed, your opponent gets to close you'll go down to a knife and only if that's lost will you down to a your fists, and if those cut off, legs and teeth.  Maneuvers with those weapons are spammed until they are countered or are no longer applicable (gun runs out of bullets).  A guy with a machine gun fires, fires a lot, sprays or short bursts.  Sure he can switch between them, but does it at his leisure.  That's just how it goes.  If you try to split logs you spam the same action over and over and over again for each log.  When you do most actions, you find the most effective way of doing it and spam.  You may stop when tired, wipe the brow, then get back at it.  It's simple nature that when you find the best system of doing something you do it until someone else shows you a better system.  

The recharge system is counter-intuitive to that effect and natural system.  I'll go into that a little more, but I gotta run, so I'll get back to you. 

One last thing I should point out real quick, I know the actions will be different depending on the cards.  But, my point with that is, if you have other, secondary limitations to a cards abilities a player has to react to his situation with the cards instead of having another artificial mechanic steps in and takes over (the recharge system).  I would argue that someone who has a mega smash and light smash as I outlined may choose to use one or both against an NPC in armor.  Light stabs until he's halfway down, then hit him with one powerful final blow.  It's hella cinematic and would be a great system.  If there is a cost, things sacrificed to use an ability it adds tons of detail. 

The problem, as I see it, commoner, is that things like splitting logs where repetitious actions are common (and most efficient) do not involve a dynamic situation.  You soldier is not going to keep thrusting his knife at the enemy in the exact same maneuver over and over again. He's going to slice and then stab, sometimes high and sometimes low, so he remains unpredictable to the enemy.  The enemy is going to do the same. To spam an overhead swing at an enemy is to make yourself very vulnerable and predictable, regardless of how effective it will be *if* it lands.  Not only does it make the attacker more vulnerable, but it makes the attack more easily avoided/blocked/less likely to land.  Thus, such repetitious attacks are avoided. Now, it's true that occasionally doing the same attack twice or three times in a row is sometimes done ('realistically'), and that is not still not allowed in the 3e rules.  However, there always comes a point where, since this is a game, rules need to avoid being overly complex.  Each exception to a rule makes the rules that much more complex, so a line needs to be drawn somewhere.  I'm not saying that these are the greatest rules of all time or anything.  They might even end up frustrating and getting house ruled. But I don't see them any more unrealistic than other RPG rules, and I like the fact that it causes players to need to think about when to use certain attacks and have them rotate out different actions rather than using the same one every attack because they like it best.

commoner said:

In history, an entire battle was won hitting German plated soldiers (a novelty for that time) in the armpit, were plate offers no cover.

commoner said:

The bold part is the important bit. He'll try it every opportunity he gets, but that opportunity won't come up every single. round. The recharge-system if an abstract way of representing that, with banes on the attack roll (which add to the recharge time) adding some variety (your opponent takes care to limit your openings). Melee combat should not be reduced to spamed attacks - it is both boring and unrealistic.

I think Jericho and Commoner make good points here.

I also find it's a pity that the initial idea (using dice pools) was innovating and seemed exciting to use but the action cards I've seen and the recharge mechanic are not very appealing to me... In D&D4 you also have lots of "actions" with fancy names you can do with your character so that at the end the game focuses too much in the combat tactics using the powers you have instead of describing the scenario to the characters, letting them say what they want to do, then deciding how to solve the action... players no longer describe anything, they just move their miniature on the table and say the power they are going to use... At the end I realised with D&D4 that it became a sort of tactical combat game and, let's face it, there are much better tactical combat games out there, Descent being my favourite.

So, I was a bit tired of the mechanics forcing too much tactics in the games and combat in RPGs being influenced by MMOs, and when I saw the dice pool and how WFRP3 intended to manage movement and distances, I was very pleased but, as Jericho and Commoner point out, I see too much "gamey" aspects in the action cards for my taste...

I'm going to buy the game, but I will most probably redo a lot of the action cards myself... Maybe FFG could publish alternative combat rules that cater more to those of us who want to see a bit more realism in the game?... I would like to see:

• Combats that are shorter and that involve less tactical discussions during the combat. One idea I proposed was giving the PCs some time (a minute, for example) to decide what to do (could be done by them choosing the action card they want to use or writing down their intention), then making them roll initiative... but anything that avoids people endlessly discussing tactically how their characters will act (instead on thinking in-character how their characters would act) would be useful.
• Action cards that leave more opportunities for the GM to decide the result of the action. At the moment, basically you just add your successes and banes and read in the card what happened... this is not what we were told at the beginning... well, at least for story mode the GMs will have some freedom, I hope...
• Equipment that gets damaged during combat... I think one of the aspects that make a universe gritty is that you have to take care of any penny... seeing your equipment destroyed during combat would add to that feeling... doing this with the dice pool banes should be easy...
• Nasty critical hits, as in the old MERP or Rolemaster... I think FFG will provide WFRP3 with this...

So, to end my comment, I like the dice pool mechanics, I like that the game will use cards and counters, but I feel the actual implementation of the combat using these tools is a bit too much MMO for my taste.