Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About illathid

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States
  1. This Guide is pretty amazing! Well done!
  2. Herr Arnulf: that's exactly what I wanted to know. Thanks a ton! Valvorik: no southlands right now. Or rather only a tiny bit as we have the whole southern coast of Araby. Pilthar: speaking of Araby, there's no real official fluff on them I've been able to find. Mad Alfred did some stuff though we're using in the mod. Since you guys seem interested in the mod, Here's the main title music for it my friend just made for us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ_WXSLwotI
  3. Herr Arnulf, I have not read the BL books, do they add a lot of detail? I've found BL books to be of mixed quality, but if they got decent information, there's no harm in trying. Ralzar, I have that WFRP book, but thanks for suggesting it. As to your question, yeah norscans will be playable. Our first release should have almost all of Araby, the Chaos Wastes, and the Old World playable. A follow up will add Ulthuan, Naggaroth, and Lustria. The mod is called Warhammer: Geheiminsnacht if you want to read about it on the paradox forums.
  4. Hey everyone, I'm on a mod team working on making a warhammer total conversion for the game Crusader Kings 2, and it's inspired me to get back into WFRP. I was thinking it would be fun to to set the campaign during the Vlad's invasion of the empire. I have a fair amount of info (all the 2e wfrp books, empire and vampire counts army books, etc.), but I figured there might be more information out there. So does anyone have any good sources that discuss the time period? They don't necessarily have to do with wars themselves, I just want to get a better idea if what the world was like then. Thanks in advance!
  5. I'm all for removing pen from weapons and leaving it to special qualities. But that's just me.
  6. The only question I have is how will you do so? If you make a conversion of some kind I'd love to see it.
  7. This is pretty cool. I really like the split and what you've done with it. Any thoughts on "burning" influence's place in your write up?
  8. Yes, I've thought of adding something like that to the current system as well. However, since narrative dice track on different axes, as cogollo mentions, you can have have more varied results. As such you can get results of "you succeed, and something else good happens" and "you fail, and something else bad happens" (or even just plain success or failure with no added effects) in addition to the outcomes I mentioned above. Yeah, which is all pretty cool. The other thing too is this could be potentially balanced for different atmospheres as well, if you wanted a more "hopeless" feel to your game. For instance, you could balance standard success/failure rates to limit the "whiff" factor people seem to hate so much while having the additional effects balanced much more towards getting negative effects rather than positive ones. Can you tell I really like narrative dice systems? The One-Roll Engine is pretty cool too, but I haven't spent nearly enough time with it to really know its strengths and weaknesses.
  9. While that is certainly true, I think it has little to do with the dice resolution mechanic used. One could easily have a very brutal game with narrative dice or extremely cinematic game with d100's. As such, I don't really get what you're trying to say. D100 ist the best system for experienced gamemasters, as it allows for easy and direct calibration of skill test difficulties. An average user with a skill of 50% would succeed that particular task only in 30% of cases? Okay, I'll put a -20 on the test for the player. And that highlights the difference between the d100 and a narrative system. The d100 is purely based on success or failure of a given task, while a narrative system allows for more outcomes. The ones I find most interesting in play are the the "you succeed, but something bad happens" and "you fail, but something good happens." I've those to make the actual table play much more interesting. The problem I've seen new players face with is calculating degrees of success. While the concept is not difficult, the actual mechanics as they work out play can be. Subtraction is a harder math to accomplish than addition. And maybe it's just my group, but counting symbols usually is easier to do than subtracting X from Y to determine degrees of success.
  10. I haven't been keeping the best track of the rules, but I was pretty sure consensus was that you could only get one wound per attack, regardless of how many hits there were. Has this changed or was I just mistaken? Huh, I didn't realize subtlety and armour interacted like that. Do you have page reference, because I can't see anything regarding that in the equipment section. If I could I'd rather make a change to the armour section rather than then weapons, as the armour is all pretty self contained.
  11. Thanks for responding everyone! Regarding the issue with NPCs my first thought was to keep this a PC only rule, and still have Tb soak for enemies. My other thought was to maybe just increase the protection offered by all armour by 3 (or something else) to compensate for the loss of soak. knasserII was right about wanting toughness to represent the ability to tough it out through tough wounds, but I can see where problems might arise when you've got high toughness characters, as they probably just won't die. Would flattening the wound tables help with that at all? Maybe adding +5 or +10 to the table results? Regarding the high RoA weapons v. High damage weapons, wouldn't that be a tactical choice then? Do I pick a weapon with high RoA and be more likely to give the enemy some kind of penalty, or should I get a high damage weapon and potentially be able to kill them sooner? I'm just thinking out loud here. Anyways thanks again for all the feedback. If anyone else has ideas about how to make toughness better, like Luddite's I'd love to hear them.
  12. So, as I've stated elsewhere, I am not the biggest fan of the d100 system, but as a law student, I don't really have the time to homebrew a system my players and I would like better. So that leaves me with making house rules here and there to make the system "work." Anyways, I came up with an idea for a house rule regarding toughness, and I thought I'd get feedback on it. As is, I really dislike how toughness works as "armour" and reduces the total damage taken. I don't think that really reflects what a "tough" character is. My houser use then would be to remove the toughness bonus from the damage calculation and instead use it to ignore the cumulative effect of wounds. So a character would only start adding +5 to damage for wounds over their toughness bonus, while critical wounds would be unaffected. So for example, Avitus the Scribe has a Tb of 3, and so the first 3 wounds he suffered would not add +5 to his damage taken, but the 4th one would. My immediate thoughts on this is that makes weapons more likely to cause an effect, as some of the damage is no longer being mitigated, but would still keep toughness important as it means your less likely to suffer system shock (which is how kind of I interpret the cumulative wound effects). What I'm looking for is problems that this might cause in the system that I haven't thought about yet. Any feedback though, is very welcome. Thanks in advance!
  13. And my reaction to that is that DH2 is already incompatible, and so hanging on to the d100 is folly. They should do to the d100 what it deserves, burn it with fire.
  14. I don't have my stuff with so I can't check myself, but what if the penalty isn't the the 1AP to drop it? What if the penalty is the AP needed to pick it up again or be without a weapon for until you can? EDIT: ninja'd Magnus said it better than I could.
  15. I don't know... A ad mech mystic could be played a few different ways. I personally like the idea of playing it as heretek who is combines both machine and warp into one powerful servant. Something like the Acolytes of Abraxas probably. Wouldn't make sense in every group, but could still be a lot of fun.
  • Create New...