Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Croaker13

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/16/1984

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Jylland, Denmark
  1. Through vengefulgames.dk They are also in stock some other places. There's an overview here: https://braetspilspriser.dk/item/search?search=Arkham+horror+the+card+game (You'll probably need to use a translator).
  2. I got my 2nd printing Hour of the Huntress in the mail three days ago with To Fight the Black Wind on the way (hoping for delivery tomorrow). The novellas very much aren't cancelled.
  3. I must say that I’m exceedingly intrigued by this. I agree with you guys that we should be wary of replacing the human element in board games with apps, but enemy AI in coop games has always been one of the genre’s weaknesses. It’s usually either overly simplistic, “gamey” or fiddly (or all three at the same time), so this may be one of the times when a computer will add real value to the game. Also, I can’t be the only one who’s totally psyched about getting to actually explore again (disregarding the three existing coop modules of cause). IIRC the lack of exploration was one of the main complaints against 2nd edition when it came out, and this seems like a very good way to bring it back without increasing the workload of players in a major way.
  4. Just wanted to throw in with my two cents. Regarding the original question: I have a house-rule that any skill check to influence someone that’s made without a social action card (effectively using Perform a Stunt) requires a number of successes depending on circumstances and disposition of the target, and that only very friendly NPC’s can be influenced with a single success. Even if most social actions have an increased difficulty, they usually only need a single success to influence, and they often come with additional benefits if the player rolls well. In addition, each social action can only influence an NPC once in a single encounter (which can cause two, or more, points of “influence”, if the card has that effect). That rule is simply there to encourage players to buy several different social actions. Doesn’t matter if they already have the most efficient one (Steely Gaze anyone?) – If they need to influence an NPC eight times, they have to break out the second-stringers.
  5. I feel your pain man. I’m Danish, and we seriously don’t have any firearms lying around. Used to be, members of the “Home Guard” could have weapons at home, but that hasn’t been allowed for some years. Other than that, it’s a real pain in the backside to get, and retain, a license for hunting rifles and you need a different license for knives longer than 12 centimeters (except kitchen knives and the like). It doesn’t mean that you can’t find those kinds of weapons (especially knives, since that law is just nuts, and many people don’t really follow it), but most of them will be illegal, and the rest will be locked away in bunkers and/or steel cabinets. Most of my own role playing group are current or former soldiers, so we at least know where to look (even if we don’t necessarily have the keys and codes to the huge friggen bunkers where they are locked up), but I forsee a lot of very improvised weapons in my future (which might be equally awesome ).
  6. 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 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.
  7. Look in the House Rules sub-forum. There's a thread about it near the top. Cheers
  8. 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
  9. The short answer is that I don’t (yet). Right now, wardancers are on the to-do list (along with swordmasters) somewhere below magic and insanity. As you correctly surmise, there are a few problems with wardancers. Besides removing stance depth, I’ve removed recharge (for most actions), which basically means that every single wardancer action will have to be reworked to make any sense. Additionally, one of my specific design goals is to reduce the number- and importance of actions. All though I could probably make wardancers work in much the same way as before, by adding recharge to their actions, it would make them stand out even more as a “minigame” than they do now. Don’t get me wrong – I like the general idea behind wardancers, but it’s just entirely contrary to what I want from my Warhammer roleplaying. If it was some sort of competitive card/miniature game, I’d be all for it (think Netrunner, but with WFRP characters), but in WFRP I want the mechanics of the system to be relatively unobtrusive, without degenerating into a “storytelling game” - and wardancers, in their current form, are IMO all about watching the mechanics at work. It might be a thing of beauty, but it’s not what I want. What I’ll probably end up doing is creating a couple of specific actions and talents that all emphasize, and enable, switching stance mid-encounter.
  10. Hi Archon. The way I play it, characteristic dice are exchanged for expertise dice. I could probably use reckless/conservative dice instead, but I’ll have to check the probabilities, as I’m a bit worried that PC’s might be overwhelmed by chaos stars (I have ruled that comets and stars chancel each other out). It’s not a bad idea though… I’ll probably look into it, as long as it doesn’t add unnecessary “fiddlyness”. As it is now, a character’s stance still determines which side of the action-card is used, but hasn’t got any effect on the dice. To compensate, even the basic actions have different effects in conservative and reckless stance, which means that there’s a distinct flavor to being in either, even without the dice. Players have to pick a stance at the beginning of encounters, and have to pass a discipline test to switch mid-encounter.
  11. In general news: I went to a local boardgaming convention this weekend, and had a chance to test my rules, along with a scenario I'm working on (which was probably a bit overly ambitious - I've been working overtime all week to get ready). I'm happy to report that it went splendidly. There were two players from my regular group and two who haven't played WFRP before. I was able to explain the rules in about 10 minutes, and everything went smoothly from there. A few observations: - Actions causing strain instead of getting recharge tokens works very well. I need to work a bit on the balance between actions, but the principle is very sound. - Players quickly max out on strain during combat. This is not a problem per se, but I'll have to change the rules for getting insanitities, otherwise PC's will go insane in about five minutes. Good news is that "Assess the Situation" sees a lot more use now. - Nobody missed reckless and conservative dice - Characters are reasonably proficient, even with 5 less creation points and the change to dice-pools (I used characters with 3 xp) @twodogz: I just might take you up on that. I'll need to make a few more adjustments to the rules first though. @r_b_bergstorm: I know. One time, I accidentally killed a toughness 2 character who ventured into a sewer. He just couldn't make those resilience checks to resist disease Threw the whole campaign off track... I would normally advice my players to think really hard before taking toughness or willpower 2, but I really hate the fact that most new characters aren't bad at anything as it is now. Besides, an equally valid approach would be to only upgrade a single characteristic to 4 at creation. There are a few changes that I think will alleviate things: - I'll allow players to buy a single fortune die upgrade to characteristics at creation - I'll change the rules for gaining insanities. This is primarily to make it work with the changed rules for gaining strain (fatigue/stress) - otherwise everyone would go insane very quickly. I'm not sure about the details yet though. - I'm changing opposed checks, so that the difficulty is exclusively dependant on the opposition's characteristic+skill, which will lessen the impact of a lower skill Still, this change will require the GM to adjust. You should no longer throw beastigors (or even regular gors) at new characters. On the other hand, 1st and 2nd edition adventures should fit better out of the box.
  12. @Yepesnopes: Thanks, and I quite agree. @Emirikol: That’s actually a very interesting discussion over at WotC. Something I wish FFG had done when they made 3rd. On the bright side, their new practice of running beta programs for RPG’s gives me hope that they will if they ever make a 4th Ed. I appreciate that people might disagree with me about power-levels, but I’ve always seen WFRP as being about the long climb out the gutter (or at least obscurity). And there’s no reason to remove the box about “higher power games”, to help guide groups back to the power-level that 3rd Ed is at today, if that is what they want. Removing five creation points may seem harsh (and it will need to be play tested), but it’ll force the players to make their characters bad at something, as opposed to now, where most new characters are merely average at most things and great at a few. With five less creation points, a starting human could upgrade every characteristic once (in addition to the free advances), for a stat block of 443333, but wouldn’t have any points left afterwards. This will probably make most players downgrade at least one characteristic, which is exactly what I’m going for. I might allow characters to buy a single fortune-die advancement to characteristics at creation, to make the system a bit more flexible.
  13. Almost forgot something that people might consider a big change. Characters have five less creation points, to bring their power-level a bit closer to basic NPC's. IMO, 3rd Ed characters are too strong at creation. A starting WFRP fighter type shouldn't be much more powerful than a "normal" soldier NPC.
  14. I must admit that I'm very much looking at this from a GM's point of view, where, at least from my experience, the recharging cards quickly build up. However, my antipathy towards recharging isn't only based on the extra workload. Some of my other reasons are: - I don't like having too many cards scattered all over the table. It takes up too much space and breaks my immersion. Some may see this as going against the "spirit of 3ed Ed", but I've always mostly seen the cards as a good way of "handing the relevant rules to the players" - like reference cards if you will. I don't mind my players slapping a card down and yelling "Reckless Cleave you [expletive deleted]", but then I want that card to go away again. I actually think that WFRP 3ed Ed would make a decent competitive game, and if it was, I wouldn't have minded as much. - I don't think recharge is a very good balancing mechanic. It only works if the player doesn't have an equally good alternative while waiting for a card to recharge. Just look at the problems with Reckless Cleave, Mighty Swing, Thunderous Blow, etc. By themselves they are very powerful (too powerful IMO), but if a character has all of them, the game simply breaks, as the player can unleash 20+ damage every single turn - which IMO is why so many GM's nerf these cards in some way. If these cards had caused large amounts of strain instead, a character could only have used them for a few rounds before falling over unconscious. Problem solved. Besides, I wanted to go over the actions anyway, which means that implementing this rule wasn't too much of a problem.
  15. I've been wanting to take a stab at a "WFRP 3,5" for a while now. I like 3rd Ed and I'm not going to abandon it - at least not until I finish running my current campaign, which will take a year at the very least. However, I'm becoming more and more aware that 3rd Ed is, for lack of a better term, very inelegant. There's a lot of good ideas there, but IMO FFG went so overboard with adding new systems that the playing experience as a whole suffers. This is my attempt to trim the rules down a bit, to make them flow more easily. I've taken some queues from 1st/2nd Ed and Edge of the Empire, but this is supposed to be a WFRP 3rd Ed conversion. I've also included some of the more common house-rules. I've written up a list of changes I want to make. When I've refined them a bit, I'll try them out with my regular group, but if any of you would like to offer some advice or opinions in advance, I'd very much appreciate it. The list is here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9PKQqy0HcWgZUJkVE9sZVBReGs/edit?usp=sharing It's very long and a bit rambling, so read at your own peril. The major changes are: - Dice pools are assembled like EotE, with either the higher of characteristic or skill+specialization determining the amount of blue dice, and the lower determining how many are upgraded to yellow - Stress and fatigue are combined into Strain - Actions (with a few exceptions) no longer have recharge, but cause strain instead - Stance meters are out, along with reckless and conservative dice. A character's stance simply determines which side of the action cards are used. - No talent-sockets. Once acquired, they are always active - Far fewer actions and talents in general - Opposed checks are changed. Difficulty is (opposed characteristic+skill)/2. - I want to change the magic and blessing rules to something less fiddly, but I'm not sure exactly how yet - Edit: Characters start with 5 less creation points Cheers Croaker
  • Create New...