I don't have WFRP 2ed with me, but just taking a quick look I can see a few things that your analysis has excluded.
Firstly, every hit has a 1 in 10 chance of doing an additional d10 of damage.
Secondly, if memory serves, their is an 'Aim' action that increases the to hit chance by 5%.
Are you also going to include Dodge, Parry, and Talents that add more damage or modify the critical table; like Strike Might Blow, or Strike to Injure?
|
I'd be interested to see if this matches any readers' experiences of playing warhammer 2nd ed - I've only played twice and both times found this length of combat to be a significant problem.
As my longest living 2nd ed. WH character was a surgeon I never really bothered to much with combat. I was usually hiding. I think you are right that the length of a combat may be similar (longer?) but the outcomes are usually more interesting from a role-playing point of view in WH. The critical tables, assuming you don't go toes up, make a character dynamic in funny ways. Our 2H weapon warrior lost a hand in one combat and also went insane (same encounter, don't ask). So he stuck a puppet to his hand and it "guided him" from that encounter forth. D&D = unco. or dead no middle ground and no downside, other than death, for biting off more than you can chew. I think you risk more to your character in WH by engaging in combat. However, losing a hand or leg isn't very heroic - D&D shines at heroic, WH shines at grime (er...).
S.
I think you are forgetting that an average beginning character has a 31 in S, T and WS. that would mean almost a 1/3 chance of hitting. Average damage would be 1d10 + 3 = 8. Average T + armour would be a 5. Overall damage would be a 3. The character would be able to take about 4 hits before worrying about crits which would = about 12 rounds not 17.
Just seeking clarification. What assumptions are you making with regards to armour in each example?
This is why I play v1 of WFRP with only a smattering of v2 rules thrown in (the magic system and some combat options). The low bonuses (+5% instead of 10%) to the WS & BS scores set off warning bells for me - with stuff like parry & dodge making it harder to hit already low WS & BS were not a desirable thing.
|
|
For example, a character with a WS of 90 will reduce their effectiveness in combat against any opponent by about 90% using feint; and two antagonists both with WS of 90 will find they have just a 6% chance of actually doing damage, so the fight between them will last a very long time - my guess is 30 rounds in 50% of cases - and if they have increased toughness and wounds even longer. It's literally possible for a duel between two people with WS 90 and toughness 60 to go on forever.
Not sure I take issue with this. You present two characters who are arguably at the top of their game when it comes to combat (90 WS!!!). My Surgeon even at his height would last only a few rounds against someone like this (if he's lucky). Thus my surgeon would seek to spike their drinks and then when they are sleeping soundly cut their throats - trying feinting that. The example you give is like diamond scratching diamond - same thing is seen in games like Stormbringer. My point being in most (all?) RPG's you can construct situations where combats are either no-win or go on forever seemingly. T
This isn't a shot at either D&D or WH - but if your thinking of a combat heavy game then D&D is a no brainer choice, if your going to make combat something that happens only when players can't resolve the problem another way, then WH strikes me as the better system.
|
|
The upshot is that combat in warhammer is best avoided because it's boring, not because it's dangerous.
Perhaps you have had a little bad luck on the exact combats. It depends a lot on if you line up 1 on 1 and go at it = dull, agreed. The situation can dramatically (no pun intended) change the outcome of a battle - environment, superior numbers etc. I can only speak from personal experience - but I got dropped by a single arrow shot from an elf (slight diplomacy break down). If we examine extremes like WS 20 vs WS90 or WS 20 vs WS 20 or WS 90 vs WS 90. In case the first case we have a superior combatant taking apart a muppet = short fight, and the second two muppet flailing around at each other = long fight, and the last your diamond vs diamond match up = long fight. We found that as soon as you can get 1 or 2 extra people involved then the poor surrounded target gets dealt too quite quickly - or surrenders.
If you find the combats are taking too long, perhaps take a closer look at the adventure (if from Black Ind. then no excuse... but we did play them all and didn't run into combat-fatigue - mind you I let the people with swords fight...), and if a DM written adventure perhaps the match-up's can be changed to provide the players more fun?
D&D and/or WH may just not suit your style of role-playing? As luck would have it their are plenty more fish in the sea, as they say.
Faustusnotes,
You have fallen into a very large conceptual trap. Your looking at elements of the system in isolation, both from each other and from the setting.
Your evidence that a lot of blows can be traded without death is accurate*, but because your looking only at two fighters going at each other with swords you miss the wider picture. Firstly magical healing is practically a non-factor in the warhammer world, and the game is built with the core assumption that in combat healing will not occure.
A first level party of wizard, fighter, cleric and rogue in Pathfinder have a considerable amount of healing which a first 'level' WFRP party does not have. Once channeling has been used up, along with any remaining cure lights, combat could have been extended by a considerable length beyond that which a warhammer fight can run too
Warhammer could, very easily be made more realistic, and the system is not especially realistic. Double to hit chances, remove parry and dodge options, have ulrics fury funtion on 9/10, would speed things up and make it much more like the north london knifeing. But you'd have a situation where characters died in every combat, and the game would be all but unplayable.
Instead, we have a situation where characters can survive, can fight two or three fights in a row, without death, but the combat still feels dangerous, where preventing yourself being hit matters.
Even at the 6000 exp mark, when you might reasonably be in full plate, a group of seven or so beggars with rusty knives can kill you in one turn, and do so with relative ease. Ask your self this, how many level 1 commoners with daggers would it take to take down a level twenty fighter in full plate and tooled out with full treasure for that level.
*that said i think your handling armour wrong, in that the vast majority of starting warriors have only a point on the arms and the body, but not the head or legs.