Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Glimnir

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Thetford Mines, Quebec, Canada
  1. Hello. I've been game mastering for about 18 years now, and I've played in more settings and systems than I can remember, but I think I could use some tips for speeding up the game with the new WFRP 3e rules. To my group (and I have to agree), this system seems to be to most time consuming of all (even a bit more than Shadowrun), and that's a flaw that might prove fatal to my group, even if they like the setting and a lot of the nice game add ons of this edition. Last night, we started the Dramatic Finale chapter of the Eye for an Eye Intro Adventure. At around 9 pm, the group found where the ritual was taking place and started to confront the cultist. A whole lot of cool things happened and they managed to barely make it through, killing all cultists but just failing to prevent the sacrifice, killing piersson before he fled with the painting, killing all beastmen who were coming over the walls (one PC was outside with the kennelmaster during the fight with the ritual), and finally confronting the weaker version of the daemon inside the shrine to sigmar where they had put the painting. The problem is, the first act (the ritual fight) took about 4 hours to complete, and by the time the daemon was slain, it was passed 3 am! So basically, it took around 6 hours to complete something like 15-20 combat turns! My players were a bit disheartened by that fact, and so was I. In the earlier editions of Warhammer (or for that matter, with the current editions of the 40k rpgs), those same fights might have taken maybe half that time, if not less, and they would probably have had even more combat rounds too (which means each players gets a turn more often). I'm not sure we'll keep on playing with these mechanics if we can't find ways to make things go smoother and faster, so I'd really appreciate some tips. Here's what we are already doing: 1- I currently have 5 players. We started out at 3, then 4, and now 5, so yes, this bogs down the game a bit, but in other settings and systems we often and easily played with around players and it ran much more smoothly than this. 2- I have the basic dice set, plus an extra pack (the one with a dozen or so dice) that my players share, while one of the players and I have the WFRP Ipod Application, meaning we don't need to use the dice at all. 3- All my players have their action cards and talents and everything right in front of them, for easy reference, and I photocopied a set of basic action cards on one sheet for my 5th player. 3- I encourage my players to think of which action they want to do before their turn comes up and start counting their dice. 4- Often, while a player is picking his dice, I'll ask what the next one is doing before the first player has finished his own turn, especially when I know the next player will probably not need to make a roll that turn. 5- In the part of the adventure I just described, I used a progress tracker to describe how well the beastmen were doing getting inside the compound while the player outside simply made ballistic skill rolls with his bow and leadership rolls (only twice) to affect how the defenders were doing. No initiative, defense or wounds were considered until the entire party came together to confront what was left of the beastmen (4 ungors, 2 gors and the wargor) 6- I used boons, banes, comets and chaos stars to determine how well or poorly NPCs were faring during fights (ex. a Chaos star rolled during the battle with the cultists meant one of the hounds of Olver Gand got killed and set back the defenders token 1 space) So, that's pretty much it I guess. Any advice?
  2. Hello. I just finished my second session of WFRP and have a couple questions. They pretty much all on different topics so I'll make a list. Feel free to answer any or all of them. Thanks. 1- What would be a good price for a riding horse (and other mounts, for that matter)? (I guess I could just check my old WFRP stuff and convert prices, but still) 2- Can a wizard using the channeling action can normally choose whichever success line he wants? If that is so, how is channeling recklessly riskier than conservatively? (since you can simply choose to channel less power and not exceed your max) 3- When using his Magical Sight, would a wizard notice anything special about... 3a- mutants? 3b- chaos artifacts or deamons? 3c- Divine shrines or items 3d- Items such as "Korden's Hammer" in the intro adventure. 4a- Some attack spells seem to be described as attacks on their cards, and yet are not checks VS. Target defense. Does that mean opponents don't use their defense and active defenses, and that the spell doesn't gain the default 1 challenge dice for attacks? 4b- If not, would you add some challenge and misfortune dice anyways for those spells, or do you consider them to be like old school D&D Magic missile which, if successfully cast, always strike their target? 5- Some attack spells have no listed range. Can those spells be cast at any range without penalty? That's all I can think of for now. Thanks for your input.
  3. >>This is one of those nonsense things that you have to just ignore about sci-fi in my opinion. Along with the Emperor creating neutered superwarriors instead of ones who can at least breed the next generation of fighters (and only male ones at that for no sensible reason). There's also the descent from technological society to practically medieval which you have to accept as being likely. Or that people would begin to worship machine spirits - after a war with AI's. Or that psychic powers can exist. I think you have to be careful when making that argument. I used to have a debate with D&D fans who found it quite silly that I commented on how stupid falling damage was handled in that system, since even first level characters were more than likely to survive falls of 50 feet or more. They couldn't understand why that bothered me, but accepted the idea of magic spells and monsters just fine. Because, of course, that is a complete non sequitur argument. The creators of a world like Eberron, for example, clearly intended for people in that setting to be able to learn and cast magic spells. However, they clearly assumed that gravity worked in essentially the same way for all people in the setting, unless they had special means by which to affect it (like spells, for instance). People don't simply fly around without spells or magic items, nor can they walk on water, and they fall when they walk over a precipice. The fact that magic spells exists, or beholders who float around exist, has no relation to the fact that falling 50 ft. HURTS a lot more than the mechanics described. The problem, therefore, lies with the mechanics, not with the setting. Now, I'm not saying you're wrong about some weird ideas about the 40k setting, though I think you could justify many of the above examples you gave with the appropriate background, but clearly, there is a disconnect between the illustrations of space battles from 40k products and the mechanics of space combat. I'd also point out that I can live with the fact that some sci-fi mechanics are most likely not realistic. However, since some facts also support my idea of bringing down the scale of space combat, I was merely exposing them to give more than one reason to do so. ... >>I'm not saying you're wrong that the ship combat doesn't really make sense but it shouldn't surprise you. I think having the combats conducted at shorter ranges does make more sense and lends a sense of drama. That is also how I feel about it. I simply don't like the idea of these massive ships zipping past each other in the blink of an eye and firing at each other without ever actually seeing each other. I much prefer the idea of both ships slowly passing each other with each of their broadside turrets blasting at each other like the Star Wars batlle scene or old sailing ships... as they show in the art.
  4. >> That is pretty common across most science fiction in a visual medium. Visual range encounters just look better. I know, but why not make the rules fit that picture, since I don't see why not. ... >>>> Our target is moving 55km per second, so the batteries would anticipate and fire ahead of course, but even at that ordnance speed, it would take more that 43 seconds for a shot to reach the target! >>Not really a problem with half hour turns. You miss my point, which is that in that time frame the target ship will have altered course and/or speed to avoid the shots, but I guess you addressed it in your next comment. ... >>>> So the thing is, if a ship is making any kind of evasive manoeuvres (by that, I mean adjusting either speed or heading by even 1% or 1 degree in any direction, and although I agree the ships aren't manoeuvrable at all, they still can go from 200,000 kph to a full stop or any speed in between within 30 minutes, and/or make at least one full 90 degrees turn within that timeframe, so it clearly is possible), they would evade the shots by several kilometers! >>Which is why macrobatteries cover most of the volume that the enemy ship might be in. Here is why "A Question of Scale" is an appropriate title. When you say "most of the volume", I don't think you realize what kind of volume you are talking about. Assuming that a ship moving at 55km per second would only adjust speed and bearing by +/- 1% or 1 degree, in 43 seconds, that would mean the "volume that the ship might be in" would be over 135 MILLION CUBIC KILOMETERS! Even if your kiloton ordnance (as described in the rogue trader book) has a blast radius (which would be a lot different from a detonation in athmosphere anyways) of say 100 Cubic kilmeters, and say you only cover only half the area, you'd still need to fire over nearly a MILLION rounds EVERY MINUTE to have about 50% chance of hitting your target ONCE and only with the blast radius! The rules describe the ships hitting multiple times with the batteries, and I'm fairly certain they mean at least some of the shots to be direct hits. I'm also fairly certain that even when they talk about rapid firing weapons, they are nowhere near that kind of firing rate. At the rate you'd use up ammo, even a 5 km long ship jam packed with munitions would be out of ammo in a few game turns. And thats only if the ship alters by ONLY 1% or 1 degree! Clearly, that just doesn't work. ... >>>> seeing as the collision would generate kinetic energy of over 6 GIGATONS of TNT >>One of the forums I visit does calculate how strong various sci-fi settings are. While it does vary a lot depending on the author, there are some authors who depict the power of ship weapons in the high teraton/ low petaton range. If the armour can take that, 6 gigatons won't do much beyond removing the paint. Here is their main 40k analysis thread. I assure you, no matter what this thread says, that a 6 gigaton energy release, not to mention ships going from 200,000 kph to a dead stop will most definately do more than scrape off some paint... While I have skimmed a similar forum, and will go check out that one, I know that some weapons, the nova cannon being the most striking, would have that kind of firepower, I'm curious to see how they can explain how starship armor is supposed to sustain those hits. As I've said, it's a Question of Scale.
  5. I don't know if I'm the only one (though I doubt it), but while looking at the Rogue Trader (and, later, Battlefleet Gothic) art of space battles and starships dramatically facing off in fleets or side by side and firing at each other like sea ships of old, I realized something... Those never happen within the actual game. If you (as I) want these kinds of space battles to occur, you really, REALLY, need to nerf the scale of space combat. And while doing so, you may also fix a couple physics issues with the game, too. The problem is, the Rogue Trader starship rules (which are actually based on Battlefleet Gothic rules and scale) state that 1 VU is equal to 10,000 km, and most weapons have ranges averaging 6 VUs (which means they fire up to 12, so thats 120,000 km) If that is so, space combat would almost never (probably 99% of the time) occur at the ranges shown in the art. Indeed, even at point blank range (1 VU away) your art should depict one ship only, and its opponent, even a 6km long ship, would only be a speck in the distance, even less visible than the stars in the background. Furthermore, the 1% of the time ship would actually fire at each other at those ranges would really be just a snapshot frame of the battle, and thats because of the ship's speed. Have you noticed that if a ship has a speed of 10 (not even the fastest a ship can go), it goes at 200,000 kph (10 VU per 30 minutes). That's over 55 km PER SECOND, so unless the two ships have exactly the same speed and exactly the same course, even the slightest derivation would mean they would be out of sight in a matter of seconds, not to mention if they were going in opposite directions! The question of speed also brings a couple problems. If your target is at range 6 (60,000 km away) and is going at speed 10 (200,000 kph), do you realise just how fast your macrobatteries ordnance need to be shot at in order to have even the slightest chance to hit your target? A bullet shot by a gun goes a couple thousand kph, but I know that's really not the same scale, and thats against atmosphere. But lets say the ordnance is shot at FIVE MILLION kph. By comparison, a moreton wave, essentially the shockwave on the surface of the sun resulting from solar flares, which are deflagrations that would easily vaporise the entire Earth, travels at around 3.6 million kph (so that's insanely fast, and probably unachievable by any sort of solid projectile battery, even in the 41st millenium, but lets say they can) At that speed, the ordnance travels at nearly 1,400 km per second. Our target is moving 55km per second, so the batteries would anticipate and fire ahead of course, but even at that ordnance speed, it would take more that 43 seconds for a shot to reach the target! So the thing is, if a ship is making any kind of evasive manoeuvres (by that, I mean adjusting either speed or heading by even 1% or 1 degree in any direction, and although I agree the ships aren't manoeuvrable at all, they still can go from 200,000 kph to a full stop or any speed in between within 30 minutes, and/or make at least one full 90 degrees turn within that timeframe, so it clearly is possible), they would evade the shots by several kilometers! Even if you shoot a lot, and with ships that aren't that manoeuvrable, with these kinds of scales, it really becomes nearly impossible for solid projectile batteries to hit. Even worse though is the idea of ships ramming! At those speeds, that clearly becomes next to impossible, and if it should happen, the results would be cataclysmic! Lets take a small raider with a mass of 5 megatons (that's 5,000,000,000 kg) and moving at speed 10 (that's 200,000 kph) who rams a stationary ship (so its actually possible to hit it). The frigate would probably get slightly damaged by that action as well, seeing as the collision would generate kinetic energy of over 6 GIGATONS of TNT (so yeah, more than 300 20 megaton nukes all in one go), probably more than enough utterly destroy both ships in the process. Clearly, you can forget about the subsequent boarding actions... Anyways, while I know starships have to be able to go at these kinds of speeds, and faster, to travel between planets in a solar system, it is clear that combat should occur at much slower speeds, and on a smaller scale, and I feel it will not only make more sense, but will also allow the kinds of battles you see in the art to take place. To accomplish this, here are some houserules I'd use (see, I didn't only come here to complain! ) 1- Reduce VUs to 10 km, not 10,000. This will make probably reflect more accurately the ranges depicted in the space combat art. 2- Reduce combat round duration to 10 minutes. This still makes space combat last a lot longer than regular character firefights, and allows time for repairs and moving around the ship, and makes a ship going at speed 10 go at around 600 kph 3- Distinguish cruising speed from combat speed. Cruising speed would be equivalent to current rules speed and used mainly to get from plent to planet within a system, but require most of the ships power to accomplish. Combat speeds represents ships moving at minimal speeds and using mainly trusters to gain maximal mobility and use all weapons and systems to maximum efficiency, and to avoid probably fatal collisions with other ships or debris during battle. 4- Extend weapon ranges rules to use the same range systems as character combat (long and extreme ranges, allowing ships to fire at more than 3 times the stated range, instead of less than twice) So, there you are. What do you think?
  6. Hello. I just wanted your opinion on how I was thinking about using the existing mechanics for running. The problem is, as some here have pointed out in other threads, that since running basically amounts to characters performing multiple movement manoeuvres in a single turn, then no characters is going to be able to run very fast for any amount of time, since they'll accumulate too much fatigue too fast for them to sustain sprinting speed. Therefore, I was thinking of limiting movement manoeuvres to 3 in a single turn. This would be to prevent an average character from a sudden and extreme burst of speed (say taking 6 fatigue to move 7 times) but then being unable to move more than once per turn without falling unconscious, a situation which i find rather ridiculous, and which I experienced in our early playtest of the game. In any case, limiting the number of manoeuvres you can accomplish in a given turn is already covered in the core rules, they simply don't mention a specific limit for movement. However, I will also allow a character who concentrates on running faster or for a longer amount of time to use the Perform a Stunt action to accomplish it. This would most likely be an Athletics test, or perhaps a resilience test for long distance runs. The character uses his free manoeuvre to initiate movement or keep moving. He the uses the Perform a Stunt action which, if successful, allows him to perform 2 other movement manoeuvres at the cost of 1 fatigue. So, basically, the character moves 3 times for only 1 fatigue, but can't perform any actions (other than running) this turn. Also, the roll results will modify this as follows: - 1 success: move twice, suffer 1 fatigue - 3 successes: as above +1 free manoeuvre which should usually be another move (so total of 4 moves, 1 fatigue) - no success: move only once, suffer 1 fatigue (as normal extra movement manoeuvre) - 1 boon: recover 1 fatigue (so move at no fatigue cost for 2, 3 or 4 moves!) - 1 bane: suffer 1 fatigue (so suffer 2 fatigue for 2, 3 or 4 moves) - Chaos star: Counts as bane, but if no success, character trips and falls prone after 1 move) So, fit characters get the chance to move a bit faster and at a much lower fatigue cost, and on the whole, can probably maintain a run for a while by recovering fatigue from time to time, at the cost of performing no other action while doing so. Best thing is, none of this is changing anything in the core rules! Just a more standard war of handling running characters. What do you think?
  7. Thanks for all the responses. I used the crossbowman example because I thought it was a pretty obvious example, but I could have chosen something else, like shooting a bow. Also, while I do agree the single manoeuvre reload seems way too easy for me (you actually don't even NEED to perform the manoeuvre, read the weapon descriptions), I was really addressing the fact that stepping back in order to perform actions which require you not to be engaged really makes the "not be engaged" requirement fairly unimportant, as you can simply choose "not to be engaged" every round anyways, no matter who engaged you before your turn. After some consideration, and reading the rules again, I think no rules change is actually necessary, and that's because of the mechanics design of the system, which are pretty open to interpretation and ruling by the GM. The solution is simply to ask for a relevant Skill check for the disengage manoeuvre, the same as you can always ask for any movement manoeuvre. You can also require the Perform a Stunt action for a particularly daring disengage manoeuvre. See, when your character moves from medium to long range in a grassy plain, during the day, and with no enemies present, you won't call for a skill check, and the action automatically works. However, if your character is moving from medium to long range in a swamp, at night, in a middle of a fight, you'll probably call for a test (Athletics, for example). The same should be true for disengaging. Let's say you disengage from a single opponent and make a run for it, you could rule that no check is warranted (the character simply uses an opening to turn tail and run (1 manoeuvre to disengage, plus others to move away), and the opponent can pursue normally). Also, if you and 2 allies are in an engagement with 2 foes, the GM would probably allow you to just step back from the engagement with no check, because while you must still use an opening and avoid an attack (1 manoeuvre), foes may be to busy to hinder your escape. However, when my aforementioned crossbowman attempts to disengage from his 3 beastmen attackers (who have no reason not to follow him at every step), then you ask for a test. Same is true if you're surrounded, or in difficult terrain and have obstacles around you. As with other manoeuvres, simply performing the manoeuvre is not a garantee that it will work! Also, if you are surrounded by enemies, the GM might even say its not possible to disengage without using the Perform a Stunt manoeuvre, which means you actually force your way through with brute force and speed (athletics), fight your way through and opening (Weapon Skill) or somersault over enemies (Coordination). Finally, if the action succeeds, banes and boons can provide insight into how good your positioning now is, and which actions you can then attempt. If you fail, you are still engaged (while you possibly did move away, your opponents matched your move, something which, again, is a lot easier (and more realistic) to represent with the relative range mechanics) I'll be trying this in my upcoming game, and we'll see how it goes.
  8. Hello. I know this topic had been discussed before in other threads, but I'd like to see if there's anything I've missed. Please correct me if I'm wrong on the following: 1- The rules state that you need only perform one manoeuvre to safely disengage. 2- The "otherwise they may be attacked" part is just fluff. You simply can't disengage without performing that manoeuvre. 3- You do not need to perform the disengage manoeuvre to disengage from an engagement consisting only of friends and allies characters, but you do need to perform an engage manoeuvre to engage a friendly character within close range. 4- It costs only a total of 1 manoeuvre to disengage from an engagement with any number of enemies. 5- Once disengaged you end up within close range, presumably right next to your enemy (or enemies), but still need to perform an additional manoeuvre to move anywhere else within close range. 6- Once disengaged, you can use any ranged attack or spell action card normally as not engaged, even though you were engaged at the start of your turn. Is that correct? If it is, it seems that will create a lot of "step-back-and-fire" situations that I think are pretty stupid roleplaying-wise. Even with cards that say you can't be engaged to use them, you'll probably be able to perform that disengage manoeuvre at no cost 90% of the time (unless you are affected by some condition that hinders or prevents it, but those are rare). That means a crossbowman who gets engaged and attacked by 3 beastmen could simply step back (free), load his crossbow (1 fatigue) and shoot a beastman. Meanwhile, the beastman just stand there looking at him dumbfounded, thinking about how stupid that rule is! ; ) I'm being a bit harsh, I know, but still, the whole idea of being in an engagement is that everyone moves around but they are all matching each other's movement. That means you can't simply step back, even a few paces, without having your opponents do the same and keep you from reloading that crossbow! I was tempted to make all cards with the "not engaged with enemy" requirement unavailable if you start your turn as engaged, and actions which add to difficulty while engaged (as some spells do) keep doing so under the same circumstances. Seems like an easy fix, but it sort of contradicts the melee cards which stated "must be engaged", and do not require you to be engaged at the start of your turn, and it doesn't really solve the problem of it being too easy to disengage without being followed in the first place. So, here are a couple ideas I had: - If my points 1, 3 and 5 or correct, then one could interpret the rule (without changing it) as disengaging from a hostile engagement as a movement manoeuvre that costs an additional manoeuvre to safely disengage. You see, the rules state that you don't have to make the disengage manoeuvre to disengage from allies, but you would still have to make a movement manoeuvre to move anywhere else within close range. Hence, if you don't perform a movement manoeuvre, you still are engaged, no? Otherwise, if you can disengage from them without a manoeuvre, why would you need to perform on to re-engage with them? So, while you have to perform the disengage manoeuvre to disengage from hostiles safely you are still not going anywhere unless you also perform a movement manoeuvre. That means that disengaging actually requires a movement manoeuvre AND a disengage manoeuvre, so it will (usually, unless special talents or abilities come into play) cost at least 1 fatigue for a character to move far away enough from an engagement to be able to do something safely. If doesn't really prevent step-back-and-fire actions, but at least there is a fatigue penalty to disengaging from hostiles. - As for point 4 (multiple enemies), I agree with some here that the purposely open rules design certainly allow the GM to determine that disengaging from a certain number of opponents, depending on the circumstances, could warrant an opposed Coordination, Athletics or Weapon Skill test, or even require the Perform a Stunt action as well. - Now, I think that this rules call by the GM could also be made if the player wishes to take an action that would normally be very difficult to do if you were first engaged with an opponent. Take my crossbowman example. The GM could state that since he is trying to reload his crossbow while disengaging and still have enough time to turn around and shoot before the beastmen catch up to him, the crossbowman's player will have to make a coordination test (with the dodge specialisation (you see, that spec can actually be useful!)) opposed to the beastmen's weapon skill or athletics (both being stength anyways) representing there efforts to catch up to him and hew him down. The DM also adds 2 misfortune dice because there are 3 beastmen (1 beastman +2 allies) and an extra misfortune by spending an aggression dice (they really don't want him to get off that shot). If the test is successful, the character makes his attack as normal, but banes could generate misfortune dice on his attack. If unsuccesful, boons could say that he managed to move away safely, can't pull of the shot in time. Banes, or chaos stars, could mean he doesn't get away after all, or worse. So, how do you handle this?
  9. During a rally step, you can make a Resilience check to recover additional fatigue.
  10. Hello, I know this had been discussed somewhat in different posts, but I'm having trouble figuring out which circumstance warrants challenge dice rather than misfortune dice. I understand that FFG purposely avoided providing strict tables, but some additional guidelines would certainly help. For example, if a Reiklander Hunter shoots an arrow with a shortbow at a goblin at medium range who is running for his life through a thick forest in at dusk, how does this translate in challenge and misfortune dice? That seems like something which is rather hard to do, but is it hard as in 3 challenge dice, or hard because its still a simple test (1d) (shooting a target at medium range) with 1 Md for the running goblin (sort of like dodge), 1-2 Md for the trees (obstacles) and 1 Md for the low light? If it's the latter, then when do you assign more than 1d difficulty anyways (aside from in opposed checks?) Any help would be appreciated.
  11. Hello, I was wondering if healing spells (for wounds, but also fore critical wounds, fatigue and stress) have some restrictions on the number of uses a character can benefit from in a given amount of time. I thought there would be, but I can't find it in the rules by skimming through the core books. I understand that in combat these prayers have rather high recharge times, and that invoking blessings have a (small) chance of some feedback for the priest, but from what I can tell, any party with a rank 1 priest of Shallya would always be at full health and have no fatigue or stress a few minutes after any fight, which kind of downplays the "gritty" part of wfrp. I was thinking of making these blessings available only as "First Aid" is, and indeed, they would not be cumulative. So, what do the rules say, and how do you handle this? .
  • Create New...