oday we will talk about naked Dwarfs...
Or rather the WFRP specific issue dubbed "The Naked Dwarf Syndrome".
First off I have to state that I'm a WFRP 1st edition player. The Grim old school Warhammer background in WFRP 1st ed. is what keeps me there. However I'd be the first to admit that the weak part of 1st ed. - compared to the newer editions - are the rules. Later editions really did improve on the rules, but took the approach of introducing the changed Warhammer Fantasy Battle World which is not rocking my boat. Luckily I live by the rule that roleplaying rules are made to be bent on the spot by the GM, but it doesn't hurt to look at shortcomings of 1st ed. before you actually start a campaign in 1st ed.
One obvious flaw of 1st ed. is this "Naked Dwarf Syndrome". Despite the amusing name, which started on the WFRP mailing list and was subject of many heated debates, it describes the problem well. To sum it up, usually your average Dwarf Troll Slayer player would end up with so much Toughness, nothing would ever scratch him, even when fighting naked.The problem in 1st ed. is Toughness' influence on damage calculation. An obvious system since this has always been at the base of the Warhammer Battle Systems, and worked fine here (although some WFB 3rd edition players would say otherwise when we talk about the Realm of T10 Chaos Bloodthirster..), based on a S vs T table.
First off it's important to understand there is different perspectives of the Naked Dwarf problem, and some who would say there isn't a problem at all.
Perspective 1) Some WFRP players feel it is unrealistic that a fully armored target is more vulnerable than a naked high Toughness target, but are otherwise ok with the whole Toughness system.
Perspective 2) Some WFRP players are entirely opposed to the fact that a natural Toughness stat exist that gives more natural armor to one creature than another, based on professions or humanoid race.
So if you want to fix this issue in your campaign you first have to decide where you stand on this. Perspective 1 is probably the one that is easily fixed, since if you sum it up it's really an unarmored scaling issue you are having with the rules.
Perspective 2 is more difficult, as you would have to change something implemented in the roots of the damage system. It tends to open up issues where huge creatures that you would assume has a natural armor will be easier to damage, since their WFRP stats base this natural armor on a high Toughness value in it's profile.
Later Editions
So how did the other editions actually handle this.2nd ed. still had Toughness dependency on combat damage, but made steps to downtone the effect.
It toned down T advancements and kept S advencements on the same scale. Damage rolls where upgraded to 1d10 instead of D6, while creatures and PCs had slightly more Wounds. Also armor was more effective. This takes on Perspective 1 and also Perspective 2 to a lesser extent.
3rd edition is an entirely different beast. I have no experience here. It's a game making heavy use of Cards, cardboard, special symbol dices. In case you are missing anything? Want to play a Priest of Shallya? Well, you need to buy an expansion pack for that. This takes the FFG boardgame approach, and I doubt I will ever be a fan. All the tracking, cards etc. is stuff I see taking away from the most important aspect. Actually playing your character role out.
Proposed fixes
Here is a list of the various suggestions arround to fix Naked Dwarf Syndrome. Some are easy to implement but may just be subtle patches to make the problem have a lesser impact. Others will make more dramatic changes. I'll leave my comments under each suggestion.1. Using later edition rules with the original Warhammer background
Straight forward as the heading suggests.
My comment: Sounds really interesting, as this would also possibly fix other rules issues. I'd rule 3rd edition out, it's just too different, but 2nd. edition rules would be worth looking into. Since I'm not that much into the rules of 2nd ed. I can't say for sure how it would impact things. Basically I think it would work just fine. It should be noted that later editions use the schools/Colleges/Winds of Magic, but remember that WFRP 1st ed. actually kind of did too, since it was introduced in Hogshead's Realms of Sorcery. If you don't want that some changes will be neccesary there of course, shouldn't be too dificult.
2. 3rd edition damage approach.
Any successful hit will always do a minimum of 1 wound.
My comment: Super easy implementation. It does make weak enemies in greater numbers far more deadly, but me personally, I always liked that idea. This doesn't address the specific issue of the problem where fully armored people feel it unrealistic to be easier wounded than a naked high T Dwarf. A change could be to have a difference in minimum wound depending on armored and unarmored state.
3. Exhaustion based approach 1
Any successful hit will reduce your Effective Toughness for this combat by 1 point. One round of inactivity will recover 1 Effective Toughness point.
My comment: Super easy implementation. Like suggestion 2 it make weak enemies in greater numbers more deadly. As fight progresses fully armored people will value their armor over a high Toughness. There is an extra number to keep track on, which can be done with a dice.
4. Exhaustion based approach 2
Effective Toughness is reduced each round of active combat with attack actions by 1 point. One round of inactivity will recover 1 Effective Toughness point.
My comment: Easy implementation. Will not put you at extra risk from many weak enemies. Approach can be fine tuned if you do not want Effective Toughness to degenerate as fast. As fight progresses fully armored people will value their armor over a high Toughness. There is an extra number to keep track on, which can be done with a dice.
5. Percentage Chance approach
Instead of subtracting Toughness from the damage taken, a D10 Toughness test is made. You then subtract the actual success of your test from the damage taken instead of the full Toughness value.
My comment: Easy implementation in the tone down Toughness category - but will introduce a lot of extra dice rolling during combat.
6. No Toughness approach
A friend of mine is using this in his campaigns. Basically Toughness is never used in a damage situations, but used for the normal test situations, and armor values are upped. This requires some scaling on the damage end, as an entire stat is taken out of the damage calculation.
My comment: Requires a lot of extra rules, which I unfortunately don't have at the moment. I had to bring this on the list though, to give the idea what is needed to fix Perspective 2 completely. I'd probably prefer a more simple approach myself, but if you are of the opinion that a pure natural stat alone can't change the impact damage of a two handed sword, then this is most likely the path to go.
s
