Jump to content



Photo

My WFRP 3,5


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#21 archon007

archon007

    Member

  • Members
  • 385 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 08:52 PM

For the record:  Red/Green dice are better than yellow dice if you want successes.
Yellow dice are better than Red/Green dice if you want boons or comets.


Upgrade could be stance dice or expertise dice. Both make sense, the core rules I think lean towards Expertise dice, so how do you also include stance dice? One way would be to use stance die to represent specialization I think this fits since it gives a higher success rate and also allows the GM to only use Fortune dice for bonus cirumstances in skill checks like EotE uses Boost dice.
It's a good idea IMO.
 
I wanted to make specializations more important anyway, so this makes a lot of sense.
As I said before, I'm not against stance dice, so I think I'll use the system if it isn't too fiddly. I'll need to do a bit of playtesting first.
 
Cheers
Let me know how it goes. I think you, we, are on the right track. The one thing with WHRP vs. EotE is the size of dice pools. With this thought process I think it brings it in line with EotE and makes more sense and will improve game speed and fun.

#22 archon007

archon007

    Member

  • Members
  • 385 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 10:28 AM

The main issue with WHRP vs EotE dice system is the difficulty dice. In EotE you can't get get the negative failure (Chaos Star in WHRP) on the normal difficulty, in EotE it has to be an upgraded difficulty.

After doing some probability dice rolls, I'm thinking it might be better to use the Misfortune dice as the base difficulty dice +1, meaning average difficulty would be 3 misfortune dice instead of 2 challenge dice and then if you would normally add a misfortune die because of circumstance you would upgrade that misfortune die into a challenge die.

Example: climbing up an old keep wall, the GM decides it's an average difficulty of 3 misfortune dice. However, because of slippery moss growing on parts of the wall the GM upgrades 1 misfortune die to a challenge die for a task roll of 1 purple and 2 black dice.

This upgrading shows the not only an increased risk of failure but an increased risk if you fail because of the possibility of the Chaos Star.

You would use the same EotE upgrading system, meaning you upgrade the misfortune die and if all are upgraded you then add another misfortune die, then if still needed and upgrade that newly added misfortune die would be upgraded.

Example: base difficulty of easy 2 misfortune dice (new system), but the GM determines do to circumstances there are 3 upgrades. The GM upgrades the 2 base misfortune dice to 2 challenge dice, since there is still an upgraded difficulty remaining and no dice left that can be upgraded the GM adds a misfortune die to the pool equaling 2 purple and 1 black dice.

This also allows you to use a similar system for opposed skill checks which would work like this:
Player A is trying to sneak past a keep guard. Player A has 3 Agility and 2 trained levels in Sneak. The guard has an Intelligence of 2 and a trained observation skill of 2

The dice pool would be Player 3 characteristic dice, upgrade 2 for skill vs. Guard 3 misfortune dice (his characteristic +1 default difficulty) and 2 upgrades for trained skill.

Thoughts?

Edited by archon007, 26 February 2014 - 10:39 AM.


#23 archon007

archon007

    Member

  • Members
  • 385 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 10:45 AM

I still think I'm in favor of using stance dice as the upgrade and expertise dice for specialization. I think the dice probabilities support it more and also from a player perspective (especially if they have played EotE) upgrading a d8 to a d10 is better and easier to understand as an upgrade than upgrading a d8 to a d6 (if you use expertise dice as the upgrading dice)

Also, I think it goes better with the dangerous feel of the system to have more opportunities to roll delay or exertion. And it also gives a real interesting choice the player have to make. Do they go reckless or conservative on this skill check? Maybe they stay neutral and don't upgrade any dice?

Edited by archon007, 26 February 2014 - 10:47 AM.


#24 Keeop

Keeop

    Member

  • Members
  • 362 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 11:55 AM

I like several of these dice ideas in narrative theory but I'd want to run some probability numbers to really see the impact on the game. It's nice to suggest these kinds of things on a thinktank, surface or aesthetic level but I'd be curious to see how the actual, real math hums under the hood. Also, the delay and fatigue side-effects of the reds and greens comes into play quite a bit with my games. Are you guys just ignoring these effects completely, or finding other ways to represent them?


Edited by Keeop, 26 February 2014 - 11:57 AM.


#25 NicoDavout

NicoDavout

    Member

  • Members
  • 162 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 02:22 PM

Interesting topic. I have just returned to WH world and was looking at the new edition, but comparing it to EotE it is too boardish for me. Too much details which happily were not put into EotE. I could take EotE system and easily use it as a base, but too much work with magic and priests. In the end I will use WH2, but good luck with the project Croaker13.
  • Twodogz likes this
Han Solo shot first, midichlosomething do not exist, Rebel Alliance was created as in the WEG books and indoctrination theory is the true ending of ME3.

#26 archon007

archon007

    Member

  • Members
  • 385 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 05:29 PM

I like several of these dice ideas in narrative theory but I'd want to run some probability numbers to really see the impact on the game. It's nice to suggest these kinds of things on a thinktank, surface or aesthetic level but I'd be curious to see how the actual, real math hums under the hood. Also, the delay and fatigue side-effects of the reds and greens comes into play quite a bit with my games. Are you guys just ignoring these effects completely, or finding other ways to represent them?


No that is why i suggested using the stance dice as the upgrade instead of the expertise dice. That allows player choice when making a check and leaves the delay and exertion effects in play.

#27 Keeop

Keeop

    Member

  • Members
  • 362 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 06:38 PM

 

I like several of these dice ideas in narrative theory but I'd want to run some probability numbers to really see the impact on the game. It's nice to suggest these kinds of things on a thinktank, surface or aesthetic level but I'd be curious to see how the actual, real math hums under the hood. Also, the delay and fatigue side-effects of the reds and greens comes into play quite a bit with my games. Are you guys just ignoring these effects completely, or finding other ways to represent them?


No that is why i suggested using the stance dice as the upgrade instead of the expertise dice. That allows player choice when making a check and leaves the delay and exertion effects in play.

 

That makes a bit more sense to me once I went through it again. I see what you're going for now.



#28 ahadabans

ahadabans

    Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 07:21 PM

I am starting a new campaign with a group of friends and we are making pretty big changes to the game.  

 

Some background.  This group has been together for a long time.  And we've played several different games (D&D 3.5, a totally home brew system using BRP rules, WFRP 3 (when it first came out), Pathfinder and most recently Hackmaster).  Pathfinder is what we generally revert back to.  It just seems to stick because the regular GM (not me) likes all the source material he has available to him (plus conveniences like Hero Lab, etc).

 

I personally don't care for GM'ing Pathfinder, so when I GM it's always something else.  I love the Warhammer mythos (I played 1st edition back in the day - I'm old).  I like dark, gritty, low magic fantasy as a general rule.   

 

A few things I didn't like about the Warhammer system when we played it the first time (I was GM and I ran the original Enemy Within campaign converted over):

1.  Action cards - I hate them personally because they slow things down.  Combat takes a long time in every system, but it's just made that much worse when the table is littered with cards and guys are reading each every turn trying to figure out what to use.  It's even worse when you have guys trying to min/max with way of the sword action cards and running mini games that overshadow the actual role-playing experience.  I'm just not a fan.  The social cards were cool, but the combat ones were more negative than positive.

2.  Lethality (or lack there of) - I don't make a point to actively try and kill PC's, but I do feel let down if we go a full 6 month campaign with no casualties (that happened).  That was impossible in 1st edition.  Now, part of this was my own failings as GM.  I was lazy with monsters and didn't load them up with action cards (so I did not crit as much as I should have).  I went light on the corruption rules and didn't even use the disease rules.  Total failings on my part.  But still, without a lot of crits, you basically can't die in this game if you have a decent toughness.  And that never settled well with me.  I shouldn't need all my monsters to have reckless cleave to actually kill PC's.

3.  The game felt incomplete - I was an early adopter and at the time there felt like a lot of missing things.  No halflings (I don't like them personally, but really??).  No Khorne or Slaanesh (in particular, the former - I need me some Khorne).  This really disappointed me (much of this has been fixed with later supplements, all of which I now own).

 

There were a lot of super positive things though:

1.  Dice pools - the narrative aspect of these in particular is wonderful.  I love it.

2.  Simple rule set - I like crunch in limited quantities, but over the years I have really come to appreciate simple systems.  It focuses more on role-play vs roll-play and that just makes the time pass in a more pleasant manner.  At the end of the night, I feel like I had an adventure instead of working math problems for 3-4 hours.  

3.  Style - IMO, this game oozes style.  The art is wonderful, the presentation (though maybe not organized well) looks fantastic.  Just the right amount of fluff without putting me to sleep with novels of crap I don't care to know.  I wish it was all in one big book and not spread out all over the place, but it really is well done.

4.  The bits and pieces - as much as I did not like action cards, I actually really like most of the other bits and pieces.  Simple mechanics that can have reaching effects.  I know not everyone loves talent cards and slots, but I think it's wonderful.  Being able to SHARE an ability you have with the group via the party sheet, is brilliant.  Every implementation of this I've seen in other games (team feats and other such things) all sort of suck.  But in this game, I think they work.  Critical wound cards.  Miscast cards.  Disease cards.  All this stuff feels really nice to play with IMO.  I don't miss rolling on tables honestly.  Give me a deck of cards to draw from anytime over a table.  

 

 

On to the modifications we are making to the game.  Some of this may or may not appeal to the audience here - much of it is catering to things my group likes.  Long story short, this is not all intended to be an evolution (I am not claiming it is such).  It's really about customizing the game to better suit what I want to GM and what the group I game with wants to play.  The rule set for WFRP3 being so simple really makes for an easily moded game IMO.  I would never attempt some of this in more complicated systems.  

 

1.  Action cards OUT / Feats IN.  Of all the mechanics in D&D 3.5/Pathfinder, feats is the one that my group misses the most when we play another system.  Adding them into Warhammer wasn't hard.  I needed to replace action cards with something anyway, so it was an easy substitution to appeals to everyone in the group.  Feats are basically super talents (they do more than talents and they are always "on").  Right now, each skill in the game has one feat associated with it.  In order to take the feat, you must train the skill and you must have a "4" in the associated attribute.  This prevents players from cherry picking the best feats and it puts more importance on skills (training them - especially some skills that rarely get selected).  With action cards out, there is now a generic attack action that everyone gets.   For active defenses, you can choose to do one against any attack (block or parry or dodge), you no longer track recharge on these.  Improved Parry/Block/Dodge is now a feat under the appropriate skill (for all intents and purposes, this is practically RAW you just get it as a de-facto ability instead of an action card you have to manage in combat).

 

2.  Second by second combat.  This was the best takeaway from our time with Hackmaster.  That system proved too crunchy overall for our group (even if it was well done), but the combat system it employed was pure genius.  There are no rounds or turns.  You start at 1 second and you play out what happens as each second goes by.  Initiative is rolled on traditional dice (lower dice if you are more prepared or have a higher agility).  What you roll is the first "second" you can act.  The true brilliance of Hackmaster's system is how fluidly it flows (everyone stays involved because you are never waiting for "your turn" - you can alter what you are doing at any time) and how well it handles weapon speed.  Bigger weapons do more damage but the swing speed with them is slower.  That is the trade off.  It's really the first system I've seen that had a really great and logical way to balance daggers with great swords.  Why would you ever use a dagger in a game like D&D?  It's damage is crap versus larger weapons (and in those games, they both attack at the same rate - stupid).  In a speed based system like this, there is a very good incentive to use faster weapons since you will end up getting more attacks in (though they will each do less damage - from a practical standpoint, this means faster weapons are better against lightly armored opponents as a general rule).

 

3.  Lots of other little house rules to deal with things that annoy me in Warhammer (like a rule for bleeding out if you take a hit that drops you to a large negative hit point number - why are you technically KO'd but "stable" if you got hit for 20 and are now sitting at -15 wounds???  Makes no flippin sense.  In 1st edition, you would have rolled on a critical hit chart and at that negative number you would have rolled "your head lands 2D6 feet from your body")

 

This is all still very much a WIP, but let me know if any of you are interested in more details.  I'm happy to share.  It will certainly change over time.  I'm also open to suggestions, especially if anyone has gone down this path before. 

 

Cheers


Edited by ahadabans, 26 February 2014 - 07:45 PM.


#29 Croaker13

Croaker13

    Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:50 AM

Concerning dice:

 

I’ve been looking a bit at LordBobman’s excel calculator. A few thoughts:

 

- If we ignore boons for a while, the expertise dice are actually only about 5% more likely to generate one or more successes than characteristic dice. The main advantage is the possibility of one of those being a comet, which has additional uses.

 

- If I were to use misfortune dice as the “basic” difficulty dice, I’d lean towards challenge + 2, so that average difficulty would be four misfortune dice.

 

- Stance dice (especially reckless) would actually be a good choice as basic difficulty dice, if you were to count successes as failures and boons as banes.

This would make even more sense if Chaos stars also counted as failures (in addition to cancelling comets), so that challenge dice became really bad news.

Both types of stance dice produce 0,7 failures/die on average, while challenge dice produce 0,88 (including stars, which might also do other bad things).

 

This made me think of the following system (which will have to be play-tested):

  • Characteristics determine the amount of characteristic dice rolled
  • Skill level upgrades characteristic dice to expertise
  • Specializations add an expertise die.
  • Difficulty is the same as before, but with the appropriate stance dice
  • Stance dice may be upgraded to challenge dice when appropriate (in a way similar to EotE)
  • Fortune and misfortune added as normal
  • If a character attempts to use a basic skill he/she isn’t trained in, the difficulty is upgraded once (this is an idea from 2nd Ed).

 

 

@NicoDavout: Thanks. Maybe if this turns out well, it might be just what you are looking for. But I certainly understand going back to 2nd Ed. I personally don’t like the combat in 2nd Ed at all – but otherwise I think it’s a fine system

 

 

@ahadabans: Funny you should mention it; I’m currently running the old Enemy Within, using 3rd Ed rules, as well :D

In general, I agree with much of what you’re said, but then again, I was also raised on 1st Ed WFRP (It was actually the first system I GM’ed).

 

A few thoughts:

 

I agree with you on lethality. In my experience, this mostly stems from many creatures, especially NPCs, being very underpowered as written. When you have a background in 1st or 2nd Ed, you kinda expect basic NPC’s to be about as powerful as new PC’s, which simply is not true in 3rd Ed. For example, a “soldier” NPC is way less powerful than a new PC in the soldier career (and for some reason he doesn’t seem to have a weapon). This trend is amplified by most NPC actions being way worse than PC actions.

I’m doing a few things to change this:

Characters have five less creation points, to bring them more in level with NPC’s

NPCs have access to PC actions (I already do this)

I give my NPCs weapons! Three damage won’t get you anywhere.

The new rules for dice pools generally make PC’s less powerful – especially as they level up.

 

Concerning your rule modifications:

 

1: I don’t want to remove action cards. I do, however, agree that they’ve been misused and over-emphasized in 3rd Ed, so I’m changing how they work.

The way I see it, actions + talents = feats, with talents being passive abilities and actions being active.

 

By removing the recharge mechanic (except for in persistent effects), the action cards no longer take up space on the table. They effectively become small play-aids, telling the players what they can do.

 

My philosophy is that non-basic actions should represent extensive training in specialized areas. Take Sniper Shot for example. Everyone can use Ranged Strike to shoot a crossbow, but Sniper Shot represents someone who’s spend a lot of time practicing the art of setting up “that perfect shot”.

  

I’m going to dramatically reduce the number of different actions, on the basis that each one has to do something fundamentally different. For example, I only want one “backstab” and one “hit things hard with a two-handed weapon” type of action. I’ll also limit the amount of actions the individual character has by removing the forced “action card” advancement.

 

Regarding active defenses, I’m a bit uncertain. Under “vanilla” 3rd Ed, I’ve actually house-ruled them as you describe, but I’ve play-tested this modification with active defenses causing strain, same as all other actions, which worked very well.

 

2: That sounds like an interesting system, but for now I’ll try to stick as close to 3rd Ed as possible, to make the conversion as easy as possible.

I like the idea of “weapon speed” and I’ll certainly have to figure out what to do with the “fast” and “slow” weapon qualities. Additionally, what actions can be used with the different weapons should matter a lot? For example, the “melee strike, but with Ag instead of St” action can only be used with rapiers, daggers and the like. Also, block should be much better than dodge or parry, to make not having a shield a real sacrifice.

 

Finally, if you’ll pardon the cheekiness of misquoting Sean Connery; “Don’t bring a knife to a zweihander-fight”. I don’t believe that every weapon must be equal, and while a dagger certainly should have its uses, there’s a reason why the two-handed weapons (swords, halberds, pikes etc) ruled the battlefield of this (approximate) time period.

 

3: That’s a good point. A solution might be to make excess damage cause additional critical wounds. About one per damage/To in excess of wound threshold, rounded up. So if a To 3 character with 1 wound left took five damage, he’d be KO’d and suffer three critical. One for the KO and two for excess damage.


Edited by Croaker13, 27 February 2014 - 07:02 AM.

  • ahadabans likes this

#30 ahadabans

ahadabans

    Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:44 AM

@Croaker13

 

Very interesting take on the dice.  Let us know how that plays out.  I see flaws in the Warhammer dice that I think EoTE dice fixes, but I'm not willing to make the change.  It's too drastic.  I feel like it will have too many ripple effects and get me too far away from the core game.  Which is sort of ironic since I'm making probably equally sweeping changes just in different areas.  

 

1.  I like your approach to the action cards.  And I originally thought of doing something similar.  But I abandoned it for a couple reasons.  One, the combat action cards are poorly balanced.  Some of them are clearly better than others and some of them are straight up broken (especially without recharge).  Secondly, no matter how simple I get the action card selection and how to use them, they still slow things down.  I don't need a sniper shot action card to illustrate a carefully aimed shot.  IMO, that should narratively come out of the dice rolls (you rolled 5 hammers and a sigmar's comet!  that arrow went straight through the goblin's eye socket.  he drops to the ground dead).  I don't want decisions made before the roll.  I want guys to just roll when they attack.  And then when the dice are interpreted, that is where I want decisions made.  A single action card accomplishes that for me.  All the fluff that goes along with it I can get from feats and/or a single action card.  Take backstab for instance.  I've tied that to a feat which is associated with Skullduggery.  Attacks with a "Fast" weapon do additional damage if you land a clean hit and either your opponent has not acted in this engagement or you have advantage and are attacking with an ally.  The big advantage to making these effects after the roll is guys waste less time.  You no longer have to look at cards and decide you can make a backstab because of certain conditions (only to miss and it not matter anyway).  Just roll.  If you hit, then determine what was done (oh hey, a buddy is attacking with me and I have advantage right now.  That was a backstab!).  My 2 cents for greatly speeding things up while still getting to eat your cake.  

 

2.  After having played a second by second combat system, I would have a hard time going back to turn based.  It works so much better.  What has always driven me crazy about turn based is how unrealistic it is.  I roll first initiative.  I use my maneuver to close range, I take a fatigue to close range again, I then use my reckless cleave action and hit you for 15.  You are dead.  All this happened before the other guy got to do anything.  And the encounter started with you 20 feet from me.  How does any of that make sense?  It doesn't.  With a second by second system, everything takes time.  And because of this it plays out so much better.  That scenario I just described can still happen in second by second combat, but the more likely scenario is this:  I have initiative and move, but while I'm moving your initiative comes up giving you time to either retreat, take a defensive stance, unsling a shield, charge to meet me in combat, etc.  

 

It comes together so well and it really isn't hard to implement.  You only need to decide how long actions take.  Hackmaster has a fairly detailed list, but I'm keeping it simple (if something would take time, it takes 5 seconds - Standard Action. if something should be instantaneous or very quick, it takes 1 second - Quick Action.  Weapon speeds are based on their DR.  4 or less = 7 seconds; 5 = 9 seconds; 6 = 11 seconds; 7+ =  13 seconds).  If you are delayed for any reason, add 2 seconds to whatever action you are performing.  If you get a free maneuver or spend a fatigue to do something more quickly, subtract 2 seconds from whatever you are doing (though nothing can take less than 1 second).  

 

On the topic of using Agility versus Strength for "Fast" weapons.  That is exactly the rule I'm following.  'Fast" weapons instead of adding one less recharge to an action (which no longer applies), you use Agility for your dice pool instead of Strength.  No action card required to get that effect.  It simply becomes part of the weapon property.  Agility based characters now have a real incentive to use fast weapons.  Spears look a whole heck of a lot more attractive now.  It suddenly makes sense why Goblins use them.

 

3.  Here is the rule I'm following.  When you are KO'd, you get one critical automatically (RAW).  Then every 10 seconds, you make a resilience role.  If you fail, you convert one normal wound into another critical wound.  This continues every 10 seconds until you stabilize, which happens in one of the following ways:  Someone successfully administers first aid on you, you are magically healed, or you no longer have more normal wounds than your wound threshold (do not count converted crits in this calculation).  This means that someone with a high toughness and who is only a couple points below zero will stabilize on their own.  But if you are at -10, you are eventually going to fail resilience rolls and bleed out unless someone helps you.  



#31 NicoDavout

NicoDavout

    Member

  • Members
  • 162 posts

Posted 04 March 2014 - 04:02 PM


@NicoDavout: Thanks. Maybe if this turns out well, it might be just what you are looking for. But I certainly understand going back to 2nd Ed. I personally don’t like the combat in 2nd Ed at all – but otherwise I think it’s a fine system

 

 

In the end I did not give up! :) Tomorrow hopefully I will run the first session using EotE system. The skills are a mix of EotE+WH3, but I use all the Characteristics from EotE. Careers from WH2, most talents and some skills became talents. Critical Hits from WH3. Items from WH3, but I reduced damage by 3 for now as each success will give extra damage as in EotE. No mages/priests yet. Paragon and Chaos Fate Points like in EotE.


  • k7e9 and Twodogz like this
Han Solo shot first, midichlosomething do not exist, Rebel Alliance was created as in the WEG books and indoctrination theory is the true ending of ME3.

#32 NicoDavout

NicoDavout

    Member

  • Members
  • 162 posts

Posted 06 March 2014 - 02:53 PM

The game went well. I see that the skills from EotE are enough and I don't have to create a new one. Of course some had to be change, a lot of more Knowledge skills, but the EotE base is enough. (Un)fortunately there was no combat so I can't say anything about adjusting damage because of different damage rules. Will see soon. Playtesting on the Conspiracy adventure, perhaps anyone played it? Set in Marienburg.


  • Twodogz likes this
Han Solo shot first, midichlosomething do not exist, Rebel Alliance was created as in the WEG books and indoctrination theory is the true ending of ME3.

#33 NicoDavout

NicoDavout

    Member

  • Members
  • 162 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 11:35 AM

A player dropped out from our WH EotE playtest game and we are in need of one. Perhaps someone here will be interested to play as a rogue? We play "Conspiracy" scenario printed in Warpstone magazine. The next two games are scheduled on the19th and 25th, 8pm GMT+1.


Han Solo shot first, midichlosomething do not exist, Rebel Alliance was created as in the WEG books and indoctrination theory is the true ending of ME3.

#34 9littlebees

9littlebees

    Member

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 07 September 2014 - 06:20 AM

Apologies for the thread resurrection, but I'm going to be running a new campaign with WFRP3, which none of us have ever played (two of the players are also in an EOTE campaign I run).  While most of the group are excited about the system, when reading the rules, I've been more and more apprehensive about things, especially action cards and dice pools.
 
I like a lot of the recommendations here, but will probably try and keep it as close to vanilla as possible, which makes me think ditching practically all the action cards (except the basic ones for reference) and upgrading characteristic dice with stance dice, with specialisations giving an expertise.  I'll probably leave the difficulty dice as they are (I feel EOTE is not deadly enough, I want WFRP to be more brutal).
 
So I have some questions regarding the above:
 
1. How do you handle stance meters with the EOTE dice pool? With your houserules, depth in the stance tracks are ultimately useless, since all you need is to choose whether you are being reckless or conservative.  Maybe depth into the stance determines how many upgrade dice are actually available - that way if you stay neutral, you can't upgrade?
 
2. I'm assuming the priest / wizards keep their relevant action cards?  How do you treat spells / blessings? I'm actually much more interested in priests, since one of the players will be playing an Initiate of Sigmar...
 
3. How do you handle the "actions" / "conservative" / "reckless" options in career advancement? Just ignore them? Replace them with something else?
 
4. @ahadabans: The HackMaster combat sounds excellent, can you give a more detailed run-through of how it works in your WFRP implementation?  How do you keep track of time generally and player-by-player?  Why exactly do people need to make initiative rolls if it all happens simultaneously?  Can you share any reference sheets?

EOTE Unofficial Bestiary Thread (link) & Spreadsheet (link) | My EOTE NPC Cards (A4 / Letter)




© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS