Apologies up front, you'll probably be seeing quite a few WFRP threads from me for awhile.  After Skywalker's thread, I pulled out my old book and am on a kick.  However, I'm still eyeing the system's flaws and working out the kinks in my head.

This brings me to Strength.

You see, Strength is a crappy stat in WFRP.  Compared to the other stats, Strength is not particularly useful.  With a high Strength, you'll squeeze out another point of damage or two on your melee attacks, but the rest of the system sort of ignores it.  Carrying capacity?  Drive, row, swim?  Well, I guess those are sort of useful (but not really).

One of the problems is that Strength is linked to your WS.  If you have high WS but low Strength, you'll still do okay in a fight because the difference between 20% Strength and 40% Strength is 3-12 damage vs. 5-15 damage.  Not a huge deal.  But the difference between 20% WS and 40% WS?  A much larger difference.  That additional 20% will make a much bigger difference than the additional +2 damage.

Now, another problem is that the other stats are just plain better.  Agility: affects your ability to sneak and dodge, two very important things in a game where combat means death.  Intelligence: makes it harder to sneak up on you.  Willpower: resist spells.  Fellowship: not that great but charisma never is.  Toughness: a universally important stat, it keeps you from dying horribly.

But Strength?  Very weak.  If you roll a character with a high Toughness or Agility, you're ahead of the game.  If you roll a character with a high Intelligence or Willpower, you're doing fine.  If you roll a character with a high Fellowship...well, you can always play a bard, and maybe you rolled a high WS/BS.  But if you roll a character with a high Strength, there's nothing to get excited about because that score doesn't make him particularly capable at anything broader than smashing doors (which will likely result in a swift and sure death).

Thoughts on this?  I have an idea of how I'm going to change it but I'd like your input.

Call more arbitrary Strength checks.

Presto.  Problem solved.

Do you feel there should be a Str check?  Check it, and -10% or 20% for good measure.

I frequently call Str checks.  All.  The. Time.

I don't mind 2e threads, I'm about to start one with experienced characters and players (returning from another lengthy campaign) once the club is finished being Mordor orcs.

Quote from: B.T.;495847With a high Strength, you'll squeeze out another point of damage or two on your melee attacks, but the rest of the system sort of ignores it.  Carrying capacity?  Drive, row, swim?  Well, I guess those are sort of useful (but not really).

Strength is also the base stat for jumping, Scale Sheer Surface and Intimidate, which can be used fairly often depending on the characters and adventure. Grappling is also based on opposed Strength tests.

I am not seeing the logic here. Before you were complaining that damage is outpaced by Toughness and Armour, and now you consider Strength to be a weak trait?

FWIW I find Strength to be important and given our best combatant PC is capable of adding +9 to his damage roll (thanks a lot to Strength) I don't see your issue.

Strength also gets used outside of combat for all kinds of things, often when such things are vital to your survival. Swimming, climbing, resisting a current of water, breaking down a door, encumbrance (if you use it, which makes heavy armour easier), jumping, getting out of a grapple and intimidation (probably one of the most often use social skills in out group ).

QuoteI am not seeing the logic here. Before you were complaining that damage is outpaced by Toughness and Armour, and now you consider Strength to be a weak trait?

Yep.  That's going to happen even with a high Strength, however.

QuoteFWIW I find Strength to be important and given our best combatant PC is capable of adding +9 to his damage roll (thanks a lot to Strength) I don't see your issue.

How?  I don't have my books on hand, but I thought even two-handed weapons only do 1d10 + SB.

QuoteStrength also gets used outside of combat for all kinds of things, often when such things are vital to your survival. Swimming, climbing, resisting a current of water, breaking down a door, encumbrance (if you use it, which makes heavy armour easier), jumping, getting out of a grapple and intimidation (probably one of the most often use social skills in out group ).

I had completely forgotten that Strength is for Intimidate.  That's a good point.

Quote from: B.T.;495986How?  I don't have my books on hand, but I thought even two-handed weapons only do 1d10 + SB.

Strike Mighty Blow (+1*), Masterwork Gromril Axe (+2**), Strength in the 60s (+6).

* Nearly every PC who is combat capable has this.
** We actually nerfed the Masterwork Axe which is meant to be Impact (roll twice and take the best) all the time to just a mere +1 damage.

Though two handed weapons are +SB, they are Impact meaning you roll twice and take the highest result. This is an effective +3 to damage.

Why would it matter if Strength was less useful than other stats?

Are there more important stats then strength, yes.  Is strength useless, no.  But I much prefer it being a flavour stat then an ubber stat.  Strength is good for fighting, but as you said hitting the guy is more important.  Take that to D&D though and your strength (yes there are exceptions) not only helps you hit the guy but also how much damage you cause.  WFRP gives that separation and that's a good thing.

Well there's always 1E WHFR.
I was rereading lately that 1E used [d6+Str-Toughness] rather than d10.
 
I think Toughness values might have been higher in 1E as well.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;496151Well there's always 1E WHFR.
I was rereading lately that 1E used [d6+Str-Toughness] rather than d10.
 
I think Toughness values might have been higher in 1E as well.

The use of 1d10 for damage in 2e is an improvement on the 1d6 in 1e. It didn't get rid of the Naked Dwarf Syndrome but it helped a lot.

Also, IIRC Toughness values weren't higher in 1e. In fact, armour was lower in 1e than 2e.

1d10 over 1d6 was  big improvement.  Also while armour individually was lower in 1e you could layer plate over chain over leather add that to a high toughness and things got pretty ridiculous fast since there was no real way to overcome those same numbers just using strength.  It basically meant that to hurt someone generally you had to unleash ulric's fury or nothing happened.

Quote from: Killfuck Soulshitter;496001Why would it matter if Strength was less useful than other stats?

Because I don't like it.

QuoteStrike Mighty Blow (+1*), Masterwork Gromril Axe (+2**), Strength in the 60s (+6).

I may be pulling a brainfart here, but the masterwork gromril axe isn't in the main book, is it?  My group has only played with the core rulebook.

Quote from: B.T.;496159I may be pulling a brainfart here, but the masterwork gromril axe isn't in the main book, is it?  My group has only played with the core rulebook.

Old World Armory.

Masterwork weapons are in the main book but they simply add to chance to hit. OWA added additional benefits to add more flavour to different types of weapons.

Quote from: Skywalker;496153The use of 1d10 for damage in 2e is an improvement on the 1d6 in 1e. It didn't get rid of the Naked Dwarf Syndrome but it helped a lot.

Also, IIRC Toughness values weren't higher in 1e. In fact, armour was lower in 1e than 2e.

I was assuming that BT wanted Naked Dwarf; Str is going to make the most difference when average damage is minimal?

My bad on the armour; I haven't played 1E since the late 90s and never owned the book.