Warhammer Fantasy RP

[Misery Esquire]

So the difference between working for the Skaven and working for the empire (in either WFRP or WH40k) is a bit more bone melting Magic on your team?

I had meant to say the same as playing Paranoia but that's not a bad read either, depending on how... Comedic you like your Imperials.

[Quertus]

WFRP (2e) is, IME/ IMO…

Highly random, failure-centric, limited control, gritty, dark mirror / parody of our world.

Stats hover around 30(±10). Careers give the option and requirement to boost stats and buy skills. So (pretend, AFB) a(n Apprentice) Wizard career might allow and require you to buy "Int +10"; a more advanced Wizard career might allow and require "Int +15". Skills can be bought 3 times - the first time makes it "known" (allowing you to roll the skill); each of the next two purchased grants a cumulative +10 to the skill.

But what does that mean?

So, a(n Apprentice) Wizard who rolled a 25 Int, and bought "Int +10" and "Read/Write" would have a 35 Int, giving them a 35% chance to make any read/write rolls. If in their next career they purchased "Int +15" and "Read/Write" again, they would have a 40 Int, and a 50% chance to make any read/write rolls.

"Number of attacks" is *also* a career-based attribute; a Soldier career character can start with 2 attacks to everyone else's one. So, with ~30% chance to hit, everyone fails a lot, but the soldier gets to try a lot harder. (I don't remember whether or not they also therefore fumble more - probably so)

IIRC, XP is… 200 for a 4-hour session. And almost everything costs 100 XP (new career or "GM is being nice and letting you buy something outside your career, because you trained, or became a Mutant and therefore technically qualify for 'Flee!', or some such" costs 200 XP). So the character is improving every session, and changing careers every…6-8 sessions, maybe? But since you *start* with all the skills of your starting career, plus 200 XP, your first caster change is even faster.

The system has Fate Points, giving you a limited number of rerolls per session. Or you can permanently burn one to stay alive when you would have died (usually at cost, like limb loss or something).

Damage is generally something like "d10 + 10's digit of strength stat, minus (10's digit of target's toughness stat, and armor (max…6?))". With humans having… subverting like 8-20 Wounds. Once you run out of Wounds (HP), you take crits (which can cause things like limb loss, bleeding out, and death). Other common sources of bad things include disease, insanity, and mutation.

I really want to run the epic fail "you meet in a tavern", where the waitress rolls for hearing and remembering the items you order (with about a 30% chance of success on each roll, mind), the cook rolls to create the order, the waitress rolls to balance the food, all with disastrous fumbles on 96-100, and play it for pure comedy.

I generally like the system. But… I haven't become as strongly attached to the characters in WFRP / they haven't really developed the depth and variety of goals as characters in other systems.

[Mr Beer]

WFRP flavour is amazing. Just this rich great world, and you're mere plebs potentially struggling with vicious barons, lurking mutants, hordes of outlanders, the Skaven, the Inquisition. There's adventure all over but it's far from the traditional D&D dungeon-bash model, it's rooted in a more realised, gritty Renaissance-type setting. If you survive long enough, you can become full-fledged heroes but the world itself remains dangerous. The background profession model is also highly flavourful and offers meaningful choices, while some are objectively better than others, you can fun with any profession.

It's worth mentioning that the tendency towards grimdark is leavened with a fair bit of humour. This is important; without it WFRP could easily have become a VTM setting - super dark and edgy and EXTREMELY SERIOUS REAL ROLEPLAYING TM, we are not like those childish peons who play D&D.

However, the combat system itself is bad. It's swingy, you spend a lot of time just outright missing and it's relatively easy to randomly roll up a high Toughness character with OK armour that's very difficult to take down, while everyone else is a squishy meatbag.

I recently ran a WFRP campaign using GURPS, everyone had a 125 point character to start and much fun was had. That fixed the ****ty combat system, I will say though that no-one wanted to go Ratcatcher. Given the choice there was a Witchhunter, an Officer, a Dwarf Runesmith and a Dwarf Trollslayer. On the flip side, since everyone had the same number of points, it's not like that's powergaming. But it lost some of the charm of having a Beggar or a Farmer in the group.

[TheSummoner]

EDIT: Everything I'm saying is about 2E. I haven't played 4E, so maybe some of this isn't the same there.

"Number of attacks" is *also* a career-based attribute; a Soldier career character can start with 2 attacks to everyone else's one. So, with ~30% chance to hit, everyone fails a lot, but the soldier gets to try a lot harder. (I don't remember whether or not they also therefore fumble more - probably so)

There really are no fumbles by RAW outside of magic and gunpowder. A 2 attack soldier gets to roll 2 attacks with his halberd per combat round and very well night miss both of them, but nothing worse happens to him than failing to hit the enemy. As for actual fumble mechanics, I'll elaborate for the sake of anyone whose never played...

All spellcasters have a magic stat of 1 to 4 and whenever you cast a spell, you can roll any number of d10 up to your magic stat. Each spell has a casting value, with bigger spells having higher numbers and your total roll of however many dice you choose to use has to be equal to or higher than that number or else the spell fails. If a wizard roll doubles, triples, or quadruples on your magic rolls, something unexpected happens. Doubles tend to be light or purely flavorful penalties - your wizard gets a nosebleed or starts to glow for a while or he takes a single point of damage. Triples are a bit more inconvenient - your character gains an insanity point or takes 1d10 damage or takes (temporary) stat penalties or even is possessed by a daemon for a minute. Quadruples are far more rare, partly because of the odds and partly because even being able to roll 4 magic dice is rare, but that's where the really bad stuff comes in - your wizard is knocked unconscious and completely helpless or they lose the ability to cast magic at all for a while or they take a random critical hit* or even outright kill your character by pulling them directly into the realm of chaos. Priests have a similar mechanic, but there's only one table to roll on. Most of the priestly results are fairly minor - your spell automatically fails even if would've otherwise succeeded or your spell takes more time to complete - but there are a few nastier ones roughly on par with a wizard rolling triples (you take 1d10 damage) or even quadruples (you're rendered helpless for 1d10 rounds or even roll on the wizard's quadruples table because it isn't your god who is answering your prayer).

As for gunpowder, all gunpowder weapons (except the blunderbuss for some reason) are classified as either Unreliable or Experimental. Unreliable weapons have a 4% chance to jam when fired and a 1% chance to explode outright, destroying them and dealing their damage to the wielder instead of the target. Experimental weapons have a 3% chance to jam and a 2% chance to explode and deal even greater damage if they do. The chance to jam/explode is built into the attack roll, so if your character has any fortune points left (rerolls that refresh at the start of every ingame day), you can (and probably should) reroll any actual explosions.

*Criticals in WFRP are the most common way a character can die mechanically. If you're reduced to 0 wounds, you're not dead and you're not out of the fight, but any further damage causes a critical hit with a severity based on the amount of damage taken. Low value critical hits can stun you or knock you out or cause minor penalties. Medium value ones will take you out of the fight with the higher end of that having a chance to permanently main your character. The highest value crits are instant death.

However, the combat system itself is bad. It's swingy, you spend a lot of time just outright missing and it's relatively easy to randomly roll up a high Toughness character with OK armour that's very difficult to take down, while everyone else is a squishy meatbag.

Depends on how far you are into the game, I'd say. There's definitely a problem with missing outright early on since an average human character starts with 31 in each stat and thus a 31% chance to hit. My group houseruled this so if you take a single attack, you get a +10 bonus to the attack roll (multi-attack characters swing more, but don't get the bonus). The absolute highest Toughness a human could start with is 50 (roll a perfect 40 for Toughness in a class with the Very Tough talent for +5 and use your free starting levelup for another +5), but that's both incredibly unlikely and only 2 points of less damage taken than your average human. If armor is a factor early on, you're probably either playing a class that starts with it and benefiting or picking fights you shouldn't be. Strength and Toughness tend to grow at roughly the same rate, so if two characters with similar stats fight, your strength will cancel out their toughness and each hit will typically deal 1d10 wounds. Armor reduces damage taken by between 1 and 5 depending on the kind worn. Against a fully armored opponent with similar, half of your hits do nothing, but by the time you're facing that, you're also more likely to have higher WS (or BS) and a higher chance to hit in the first place and have 2 or even 3 attacks per round. Likewise with dodge and parry rolls - you can potentially negate up to two attacks per round, but by the time you can do it reliably, those attacks are far more likely to land in the first place. Overall, it balances itself out fairly well, but it does help to bring the baseline for success up just a bit.

You also get bonuses for ganging up on opponents, so when in doubt, do that. The longest fight in the campaign i'm currently in dragged on for something like 20 rounds and was basically a series of 1 on 1's where the party was slowly was slowly being worn down by an opponent just outclassed us and his henchmen who were roughly on par with us or slightly weaker. It started with one character, a knight, fighting him and being worn down while my character, a mercenary, and a third character, a halfling rogue handled one of his henchmen and various other warriors. Once the henchman was down, I swapped in while two more of his henchmen forced through and were held off by the knight and halfling. It just wasn't working and eventually the knight was injured (though still able to fight) so I ignored my own fight, charged in to help her and wounded the henchman she had been fighting (taking him out of the fight, though failing to kill him). The fight changed from being three 1v1s to a 3v2 melee and it swung in our favor. In about 2 rounds, we overwhelmed them and the knight was able to kill the enemy leader. Both henchmen escaped, but beaten and bloody, we managed to narrowly win the battle. Numerical advantage really is the strongest thing you can have in your favor in the system.

[Tanarii]

Stats hover around 30(±10). Careers give the option and requirement to boost stats and buy skills. So (pretend, AFB) a(n Apprentice) Wizard career might allow and require you to buy "Int +10"; a more advanced Wizard career might allow and require "Int +15". Skills can be bought 3 times - the first time makes it "known" (allowing you to roll the skill); each of the next two purchased grants a cumulative +10 to the skill.

But what does that mean?

So, a(n Apprentice) Wizard who rolled a 25 Int, and bought "Int +10" and "Read/Write" would have a 35 Int, giving them a 35% chance to make any read/write rolls. If in their next career they purchased "Int +15" and "Read/Write" again, they would have a 40 Int, and a 50% chance to make any read/write rolls.

Yeah, the skill chances aren't BECMI Thief bad, but they aren't General Skills or NWPs good either. OTOH I believe the GM is empowered to modify the skill test up to -/+30% depending on difficulty. I just can't remember if the system and sample adventures encourage it or not.

I really want to run the epic fail "you meet in a tavern", where the waitress rolls for hearing and remembering the items you order (with about a 30% chance of success on each roll, mind), the cook rolls to create the order, the waitress rolls to balance the food, all with disastrous fumbles on 96-100, and play it for pure comedy.

At the least it'd certainly make a good GM horror story posts on how not to do skill checks, even if all the checks had +30% to them for being Very Easy.

I generally like the system. But… I haven't become as strongly attached to the characters in WFRP / they haven't really developed the depth and variety of goals as characters in other systems.

Because they were all dead?

[Glorthindel]

The combat system is definitely a matter of training yourself that 'things work differently'. Yes, there is a high whiff factor, but a starting character with 31% WS does not (usually) only have a 31% chance to hit.

Just as in D&D where you would always try and get Advantage if you can get it, in WFRP, you chase the bonuses. Outnumbering an enemy increases your chance to hit by +10% 2-1, +20% 3-1. If you are already in combat and only have one attack, taking the Aim half action grants another +10%, and if your not already in combat, the Charge Action grants +10% instead, and if you really want to land that hit, the All Out Attack Action gives +20%. So that 31% is nearly always 41%, and quite often 61%. And that's for an average character who has taken no upgrades in Weapon Skill. Sure, if you are used to a system where you nearly always hit, its definitely an adjustment to expecting 1/2 - 1/3 of your attacks to miss, but it is hardly the 2/3 chance that it looks like on paper.

[Morty]

However, the combat system itself is bad. It's swingy, you spend a lot of time just outright missing and it's relatively easy to randomly roll up a high Toughness character with OK armour that's very difficult to take down, while everyone else is a squishy meatbag.

It's a common belief that the combat system is lethal... which it can be, but you haven't experienced it if you haven't seen several PCs and goblins/bandits/cultists try and fail to hurt each other with 31 WS and 1d10+3 damage.

[Quertus]

OTOH I believe the GM is empowered to modify the skill test up to -/+30% depending on difficulty. I just can't remember if the system and sample adventures encourage it or not.

At the least it'd certainly make a good GM horror story posts on how not to do skill checks, even if all the checks had +30% to them for being Very Easy.

Actually, the designers seem to have decided that the players had it too easy, and made the max penalty -60%.

Anyone have eyes on modules, to answer regarding the prevalence of bonuses to rolls?

Because they were all dead?

Hmmm… certainly, a lot of them did die. And they all felt quite fragile - like they were a single ___ (fury?) of Sigmar or nearby sneeze or glowing rock away from death. Or maybe the combination of their extreme mortality and the ability to burn Fate Points to avoid such death made the "trials"of their existence seem meaningless. Or maybe the struggle to acquire the trappings of the next class being so tedious and difficult made thoughts of aspiring to accomplish anything in the system seem ludicrous. Or maybe the issues were deeper into group dynamics, rails, which paths we followed, spotlight sharing, sources of fun, what people could tolerate - and, not getting to run these characters in multiple groups, the group issues bled over into my perception of the characters. Or maybe there was too much stuff that felt like "NPC only" to bother even trying as a PC.

I don't know - I haven't really thought about it.

[farothel]

I like the system and the world (I also used to play Warhammer Fantasy Battle with Wood- and High elf armies). We have played it two times in our tabletop group and it was heaps of fun both times. However, our GM allowed us to choose race and career rather than rolling it (of course, we could still roll if we wanted it).

One thing, the wizard apprentice with 25% int will almost never happen (unless you want it o), as you have a rule called Shallya's Mercy (SM), where you can change one stat to average (in most cases a 31). If you play a wizard and knowing they need int for just about everything they do, you will probably use SM on Int to get it to 31. And if you get the Savvy talent somewhere (I don't know all the careers, but there are some who give this or other 'add 5% to a stat' type of talents), you add another 5% to Int.

[sethdmichaels]

WFRP was the first system i ever learned and played, and there's a lot i like about it. the careers model is pretty cool, i like the way the discrete magic systems get divided up, and it's super flavorful. it has a very specific lore framework so it boxes you in to a detailed-but-narrow world; it's much less customizable and flexible than D&D5e.

[Mr Beer]

It's a common belief that the combat system is lethal... which it can be, but you haven't experienced it if you haven't seen several PCs and goblins/bandits/cultists try and fail to hurt each other with 31 WS and 1d10+3 damage.

Yep, I would say that my complaint is more that it's "bad" and "swingy" than exceptionally lethal. You can easily miss 3 or 4 times in a row with 30 WS and its frustrating.

[Telok]

Yep, I would say that my complaint is more that it's "bad" and "swingy" than exceptionally lethal. You can easily miss 3 or 4 times in a row with 30 WS and its frustrating.

The WH combat system does not lend itself well to D&D style combat where people stand around and trade hits in a race to run out of hit points. It's closer to some of the older Errol Flynn type adventure movies where you see lots of sword swinging and parries for a couple minutes that ends with one or two hits.

Ganging up on people, positional advantages, taking time to set up a strong attack with a feint or aiming, stuff that seriously tilts the odds in real combat works wonders for your "hit rate". And it's not like D&D where you have to stab someone in the face five times before they even think they're in danger of maybe losing the fight.

[Quertus]

What makes the combat system feel "bad" is…that a skilled Fighter (say, base 30, +20 weapon skill) can easily miss 3 times in a row in a 1-on-1 fight (1 in 8 odds). While an unskilled youth with a rusty knife *could* instajib them or their opponent.

Yes, in D&D, it could happen that the Knight drops the foe down to just a few HP, and then their squire / boy with a rusty knife / untrained Wizard with a dagger lands a lucky hit, and gets the killing blow. But it's still obvious that the Knight did most of the work.

In Warhammer, yes, skill (both player and character skill) will help, in the aggregate, but it's far too possible for the most skilled character to not contribute at all, and for the least skilled character to solo / one-shot the foe.

How seriously would you take a movie where, more than once, the skilled marine misses repeatedly, then the clueless geek one-shots the foe?

[Xervous]

How seriously would you take a movie where, more than once, the skilled marine misses repeatedly, then the clueless geek one-shots the foe?

I wouldn’t even blink if the marine barks “lucky shot kid”.

Or if someone whined aim-bot

Are we playing combat for an expected outcome here or are we rolling the dice and taking uncertain risks?

[TheSummoner]

In Warhammer, yes, skill (both player and character skill) will help, in the aggregate, but it's far too possible for the most skilled character to not contribute at all, and for the least skilled character to solo / one-shot the foe.

How seriously would you take a movie where, more than once, the skilled marine misses repeatedly, then the clueless geek one-shots the foe?

In a realistic scenario, one good hit is lethal. It doesn't matter if it's the local village idiot fighting the local lord's champion, if the fool gets lucky and lands a good hit before the champion does, the champion is still human and still dies if the pointy bit goes into his vital parts. Maybe the champion was drunk. Maybe the sun was in his eyes. Maybe he just underestimated the fool and it was his undoing. Weirder things have happened.

Personally, I find it far more preferable to a system where combatants are a sack of meat and hitpoints that can survive several hits. It's very much a question of what you're after and thematically, Warhammer in general is very much geared towards relatively normal people facing off against horrors that could easily kill them and victory or survival is often more about being more clever or just more lucky than being more skilled. Or knowing when to run away.

And I'm in agreement with Xervous. If you want a pre-determined outcome where the numerically superior combatant always comes out ahead, why roll dice at all?

[Telok]

What makes the combat system feel "bad" is…that a skilled Fighter (say, base 30, +20 weapon skill) can easily miss 3 times in a row in a 1-on-1 fight (1 in 8 odds). While an unskilled youth with a rusty knife *could* instajib them or their opponent.

Keep in mind that WH, unlike D&D has built-in active defenses. An experienced fighter can easily have a free parry, dodge, or both, in addition to a regular one. Depending on edition I think I recall some weapons offering a parry bonus and maybe a defense bonus or attack penalty for long vs. short weapons. It's also why people historically used shields and as much armor as they could afford.

Yeah, a skaven pup shoving six inches of rusty steel into your lung is going to hurt you even if you're a extra-tough slayer. That's sort of the point of not having a combat model of 150+ hp and attacks doing 2d6+5 damage.

[Quertus]

Agreed that a "good shot" (even from the village idiot) should be fatal.

But Warhammer has the *worst* (OK, maybe sight exaggeration) combination of rules for that.

On the one hand, unlike HP, it can't model slowly wearing down the stamina of a skilled Fighter. (Treating HP not as meat, obviously)

OTOH, its monsters often *do* have massive Wounds (HP), and thus *aren't* vulnerable to that lucky shot.

So you can get the village idiot coming in after the skilled champion has whiffed multiple times, and see him one-shot the foe that the champion failed to even hit. But you can't have the skilled champion one-shot the dragon Smaug. The unskilled character can bat above their skill level much more easily and much more memorably and much more often than the skilled character can. Whereas the "skilled" character… doesn't follow any recognizable patterns (wearing down the opponent, owning / toying with inferiors, holding off multiple opponents singlehandedly, etc) of feeling skilled.

There's things I like about the system (including its handling of armor), but there's things that have just never felt right to me.

[TheSummoner]

Agreed that a "good shot" (even from the village idiot) should be fatal.

But Warhammer has the *worst* (OK, maybe sight exaggeration) combination of rules for that.

On the one hand, unlike HP, it can't model slowly wearing down the stamina of a skilled Fighter. (Treating HP not as meat, obviously)

OTOH, its monsters often *do* have massive Wounds (HP), and thus *aren't* vulnerable to that lucky shot.

So you can get the village idiot coming in after the skilled champion has whiffed multiple times, and see him one-shot the foe that the champion failed to even hit. But you can't have the skilled champion one-shot the dragon Smaug. The unskilled character can bat above their skill level much more easily and much more memorably and much more often than the skilled character can. Whereas the "skilled" character… doesn't follow any recognizable patterns (wearing down the opponent, owning / toying with inferiors, holding off multiple opponents singlehandedly, etc) of feeling skilled.

Well, one thing I think you're discounting is the Ulric's Fury rule. If the roll 10 on your D10+Whatever damage roll, you can add another D10 wounds. If you roll 10 for that roll, you continue rolling and so-on. So while it's highly unlikely that any single character could one-shot or even one-round a dragon (2E stats: 6 attacks, 55 wounds, 6 Strength and Toughness Bonus, 5 points of armor), in a straight 1 on 1 it's not impossible... You're just looking at maybe 1 in a million odds (literally). It would have to be an incredibly good shot if you were using a normal weapon. Should a single human (or dwarf/elf/halfling) be able slay a dragon in a fair fight, though? Probably not. It's a massive superpredator and among the most dangerous creatures in the game and the player characters are ultimately a sack of flesh wrapped in metal (if they're lucky) and wielding a pointy stick. Something like that is the sort of thing you bring a small army for.

A couple of anecdotes from the game I'm in. Our party had an encounter where we saw a wyvern. We're a fairly strong party at this point and a wyvern is nowhere near as deadly as a dragon (2 attacks +1 special attack, 44 wounds, 6 Strength Bonus, 5 Toughness Bonus, 4 points of armor) and the thing was actually asleep when we were in position to fight it. We were still terrified of the thing and ended up getting past without actually fighting it. The fact that it was sleeping meant we had a massive advantage in the first round of combat, but if we had failed to kill it right away, it was just too dangerous to deal with. We probably could've taken it, but decided that discretion was the better part of valor.

The opposite extreme is when the ancient vampire who has been the closest thing to a main villain our sandboxy campaign has was basically killed by a dozen slightly above average NPCs with crossbows. This was a villain who had a toughness bonus of 7, was wearing armor (probably 4 or 5 points worth), was a level 5 wizard, and had over 30 wounds, and that we had only survived by being stupidly lucky every time we encountered him.

There's things I like about the system (including its handling of armor), but there's things that have just never felt right to me.

Now I feel like you're just contradicting yourself. The way the armor works is specifically what makes it harder for a single weak character to wear down a stronger one. If you've got enough toughness and armor, you ignore most damage outright. If that's a serious problem, however, you could always try to offset it with a houserule. My group uses one your to-hit roll sets a minimum damage for the attack (better roll, higher minimum). Another option is to rule that any attack that connects always deals at least one wound regardless of toughness and armor (4E does this, I believe). And numerical advantage is absolutely huge - it doesn't matter how good you are, a big enough horde of goblins will mess you up.

The system definitely has some flaws, but I think you're overstating them.

[Quertus]

Well, one thing I think you're discounting is the Ulric's Fury rule. If the roll 10 on your D10+Whatever damage roll, you can add another D10 wounds. If you roll 10 for that roll, you continue rolling and so-on.

Kinda the opposite, actually - I'm all but counting on it.

Now I feel like you're just contradicting yourself.

Not at all!

In an unarmored, Errol Flynn / Princess Bride scene, it is sufficiently likely that the "skilled champion" could whiff 3 times, then the (very strong, or backed by Ulric's Fury) village idiot one-shots the foe.

And it's probable enough that you can see it multiple times in a campaign without questioning the dice gods.

Whereas the champion managing to one-shot a Dragon / wyvern / whatever? No, it's far too improbable for the skilled character to hit above their weight class that way.

It's that pairing that I don't like, that makes the game feel… wrong. It's "the hobbits accidentally took down Lars… but Bard died to Smaug, as did Éowyn to the witch King's wraith." It's removing all the epic scenes, and adding in comedic ones. For no apparent reason, no real gain.

Whereas the armor (and Toughness) as DR is a perfectly reasonable system - and, as implemented, is fairly well calibrated to the damage numbers.

The system definitely has some flaws, but I think you're overstating them.

Overstating? Quite likely. Sometimes I need to point all the way to the north pole before people will catch on that I'm pointing north.

[Glorthindel]

It's that pairing that I don't like, that makes the game feel… wrong. It's "the hobbits accidentally took down Lars… but Bard died to Smaug, as did Éowyn to the witch King's wraith." It's removing all the epic scenes, and adding in comedic ones. For no apparent reason, no real gain.

I think it comes down to a preference in game ethos. Yes, in a heroic saga, the skilled swordsmen getting shanked by the gutter-scum with a dull knife would seem out of place. But that isn't what WFRP is portraying. Its portraying something a little more darker. Sadly, contrary to heroic fiction, any scrub with a sharp implement is dangerous, regardless of any "proffessional training". And that is what WFRP is portraying; any time blades get drawn could be a characters end, all it takes is a moments lack of concentration, and its game over. Flying arrows aren't a minor annoyance, they are a very real threat of death. It is less Wheel of Time, more Game of Thrones (TV season 8 not included).

Honestly, if you are rolling out Dragons in WFRP, you are sorta missing the point. Sure, they are in the monster list, because they have to be, because someone is always going to want to use a Dragon (same with the Greater Daemons, you are doing a disservice to the game if you roll one of these out for anything other than a big campaign finale), but the game is much more suited to more 'human' conflicts. And for them to work, that gutter-scum with a dirty knife has got to remain a threat.

[TheSummoner]

It's that pairing that I don't like, that makes the game feel… wrong. It's "the hobbits accidentally took down Lars… but Bard died to Smaug, as did Éowyn to the witch King's wraith." It's removing all the epic scenes, and adding in comedic ones. For no apparent reason, no real gain.

Well, if you want to put those two events in WFRP terms...

Bard got off the one in a million shot with a special dwarf-forged arrow (or if you want to use the Peter Jackson version used a friggin' ballista bolt). Smaug would've been counted as unarmored and possibly even received a penalty to toughness due to where he was hit. A possible interpretation that makes the odds less astronomical is that the shot itself dealt heavy but non-lethal damage, but it was enough to knock him out of the sky and the fall finished the job. Even with that rather generous interpretation, the fact that it was so unlikely is specifically what makes it so impressive.

As for Éowyn vs the Witch King, the comparison I'm leaning towards is to a particularly powerful wraith. Warhammer wraith to Ringwraith isn't a perfect comparison, but unless you have a better suggestion, I'm going to go with it. Wraiths are stronger than average humans, but they aren't on par with a dragon. Assume that both she and the Witch King are stronger than average and it becomes a fight where she's the underdog, but still close enough that she can win. Either because she gets a lucky Ulric's Fury, because it was already wounded earlier in the battle or a combination of the two, she slays his fellbeast quickly. She then faces off with the Witch King himself and is outclassed. Merry charges in to help her, deals some good damage, and weakens him enough that she can land the killing blow.

I think it comes down to a preference in game ethos. Yes, in a heroic saga, the skilled swordsmen getting shanked by the gutter-scum with a dull knife would seem out of place. But that isn't what WFRP is portraying. Its portraying something a little more darker. Sadly, contrary to heroic fiction, any scrub with a sharp implement is dangerous, regardless of any "proffessional training". And that is what WFRP is portraying; any time blades get drawn could be a characters end, all it takes is a moments lack of concentration, and its game over. Flying arrows aren't a minor annoyance, they are a very real threat of death.

This too. The tone is very different. Heroic fantasy is about great heroes rising to the challenge and overcoming impossible odds. Dark fantasy is about average or slightly above people trying to survive and victory is never without cost.

It is less Wheel of Time, more Game of Thrones (TV season 8 not included).

Not this though. We don't talk about season 8.

[Quertus]

LotR (in which the Dragon and the mount for the Witch King are both killed by one-shot by… not even Legolas, and the hobbits *don't* one-shot Lars) is the wrong pattern, but that's kinda my point: I don't have a pattern that matches the Warhammer "tune".

Got any example movies where the combat says, "clueless loser can *repeatedly* solo a foe that the skilled guy is useless against, yet the skilled guy cannot reasonably bat above their level to one-shot a big monster"?

If so - if I had a pattern to match it to - I might not dislike it as much.

[Telok]

I don't have a pattern that matches the Warhammer "tune".

Got any example movies where the combat says, "clueless loser can *repeatedly* solo a foe that the skilled guy is useless against, yet the skilled guy cannot reasonably bat above their level to one-shot a big monster"?

If so - if I had a pattern to match it to - I might not dislike it as much.

Try running some simulations. Roll up half a dozen or a dozen starter characters, pick out the losers, pick the ones that qualify for the decently fighty classes and advance them a bit. Then try the combat system, by rolling dice with the parries, the dodges, and using the actual combat options.

[TheSummoner]

I would say that...

Got any example movies where the combat says, "clueless loser can *repeatedly* solo a foe that the skilled guy is useless against, yet the skilled guy cannot reasonably bat above their level to one-shot a big monster"?

...really isn't the case. Especially the repeatedly part. You're looking at about a 1% chance for a starting character to one-shot a stronger character with good equipment. Toughness Bonus 4, full mail armor is what I'd call moderately strong. A character probably about 15 or 16 wounds at that point. The starting character deals D10+3 damage, so max of 6 for a non-Ulric's Fury hit. You'd have to roll max damage, confirm Ulric's, and roll max damage again (1% chance) for even a +1 critical and any chance of lethality, which even then isn't guaranteed because a +3 critical is the lowest possible to outright kill the target.

The moderately strong character likely deals D10+5 (4 Strength Bonus & Strike Mighty Blow). If we're generous and give the starting character full leather armor, they still take at least 1 damage per hit and can take up to 11 for a non-Ulric's Fury hit. The average starting character has 11 or 12 wounds. One Ulric's hit (10% chance) or on average, 3 non-Ulric's hits will mean the average character starts taking criticals.

Add to this that the moderately strong character has a better parry chance, and is more likely to have Dodge Blow and 2 Attacks than the starting character. It's possible the starting character gets lucky and wins 1 on 1, but it's not likely. And the gulf between the starting character and even the strongest possible human character is still smaller than the gulf between that strongest possible human character and something like a dragon or a greater daemon. The fact that the monsters have 5 attacks and twice the wounds is absolutely huge. The daemons in particular represent apocalyptic level threats that bend nature around them just by manifesting. They aren't meant to be the sort of thing that can be soloed.

[Mr Beer]

The WH combat system does not lend itself well to D&D style combat where people stand around and trade hits in a race to run out of hit points. It's closer to some of the older Errol Flynn type adventure movies where you see lots of sword swinging and parries for a couple minutes that ends with one or two hits.

Ganging up on people, positional advantages, taking time to set up a strong attack with a feint or aiming, stuff that seriously tilts the odds in real combat works wonders for your "hit rate". And it's not like D&D where you have to stab someone in the face five times before they even think they're in danger of maybe losing the fight.

I like simulationist combat systems and WFRP is superior to D&D in that regard, but at the expense of being more frustrating. We can do better. What's impressive about WFRP is that it's 40 years old and has a fantastic setting that IMO still feels fresh today.

[farothel]

One of the main things that the GM need to do when you are a few careers in is to up the monster's strength and toughness bonus (and wounds), as those are build mostly on the stats of the fantasy battle (at least in 2E) and that's based on a standard human. For instance a treeman has a TB of 6, but after three careers humans can get there as well, so if you want to keep it challenging, you have to make the monsters better. It's not all that much fun if your Bretonnian knight has better strength and toughness than the ogres you're fighting.

[HappyDaze]

For those that don't object to some increased complexity, WFRP 4e changes up the combat situation by resolving attacks through opposed Weapon Skill rolls and basing damage off of the margin of success. This means skilled melee fighters not only hit more often, they also tend to do more damage when they hit. Additionally, those skilled melee fighters are harder to hit and tend to take less damage when a blow does land on them.

There is also an advantage rule where successful hits offer a bonus to the next roll, at least until your opponent hits you. This means that the momentum of a fight will usually favor the better skilled warriors, and in a even fight, just getting off the first strike can matter a lot.

Note that these change makes the difference between a skilled warrior (soldier, guard, mercenary, even a watchman) and a commoner (many, many examples) much larger than in previous versions. This means that the idea of servants and burgers that get tossed into an adventure coming out in one piece is probably less viable than in earlier editions.

[druid91]

For those that don't object to some increased complexity, WFRP 4e changes up the combat situation by resolving attacks through opposed Weapon Skill rolls and basing damage off of the margin of success. This means skilled melee fighters not only hit more often, they also tend to do more damage when they hit. Additionally, those skilled melee fighters are harder to hit and tend to take less damage when a blow does land on them.

There is also an advantage rule where successful hits offer a bonus to the next roll, at least until your opponent hits you. This means that the momentum of a fight will usually favor the better skilled warriors, and in a even fight, just getting off the first strike can matter a lot.

Note that these change makes the difference between a skilled warrior (soldier, guard, mercenary, even a watchman) and a commoner (many, many examples) much larger than in previous versions. This means that the idea of servants and burgers that get tossed into an adventure coming out in one piece is probably less viable than in earlier editions.

Though to be fair, even though I really enjoy WFRP's combat mechanics, magic is basically suicide for 90% of the game.

[Tanarii]

Though to be fair, even though I really enjoy WFRP's combat mechanics, magic is basically suicide for 90% of the game.

Yeah, that's one of the best parts about both warhammer fRP and 40k. I like it in Forbidden Lands too.

[druid91]

Yeah, that's one of the best parts about both warhammer fRP and 40k. I like it in Forbidden Lands too.

Eh, I don't mind magic being *dangerous* but that's not what I mean. In WFRP 4e Magic is quite literally more likely to kill you than your opponent until you've dumped tons of XP into making it safer. Meaning the wizard is more aptly called 'The guy with a stick who does no magic until the day he gets really good and suddenly tosses around magic like it's nothing because he can't miscast anymore.'