A few things I really like about WFRP

[Jaeger]

I think many people agree that WFRP 4E needs a revised core rulebook. From tidying up rules placement to using the updates found in supplements... and a rework of the bestiary that, from rumor, had bits cut out due to lack of space.

As for a 5E I suspect that will be quite a few years out since there are likely a few more supplements in the pipeline.

I suspect you are correct.

I just can't help but think what could have been had they kept to the same complexity level as 2e.

But such is life.

But if you need a streamlined WFRP then Warhammer The Old World is available right now.

Me: "A more streamlined version of 4e WFRP would be cool."

C7: "Try our completely different system that we use for 'Warhammer The Old World'!"

Me: "Dude, literally no one in the WFRP fanbase was asking for that..."

 

[RenleyRenfield]

If anyone has any questions about the system I’m happy to answer if I can.

I have question = How do you feel about the way the game handles modifiers to rolls. (such as "+10 bonus to Casting and Channelling rolls when in a rural or wilderness environment")

Do you feel that players are often forgetting bonuses to their rolls from various sources?

Are there times where there feel like a few too many bonuses to track, along with penalties?

Do players tend to not bother with spells or items or features of the game if they add complexity to a roll?

Cheers!

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

I find the 4e system too crunchy and quirky, and will start a TOW campaign this fall. But I still want to recommend C7s amazing line of 4e books, they are filled to the brim with great lore, fluff and ideas and really make the Old World come alive. Imho they are useful no matter what system you use for your Warhammer fantasy fix. And I can say without a doubt that 4e has the best (and most grimly hilarious) chapters for disease and infection of any rpg I’ve read, if a bit overcrunched.

And yes, a 4.5 edition with a little bit of streamlining and straightening out quirks would be amazing. It can still be crunchy, just more playable.

 

[TheSword]

I have question = How do you feel about the way the game handles modifiers to rolls. (such as "+10 bonus to Casting and Channelling rolls when in a rural or wilderness environment")

Do you feel that players are often forgetting bonuses to their rolls from various sources?

Are there times where there feel like a few too many bonuses to track, along with penalties?

Do players tend to not bother with spells or items or features of the game if they add complexity to a roll?

Cheers!

So there are a few things I would say to this.

Firstly, modifiers based on choices/environmental factors are amazing. They turn combat from two groups of folks wailing on each other to a game of tactical choices, where it’s not just about stripping wounds off folks as fast as they can. I use the RAW engagement rules for outnumbering where you are engaged in combat to anyone you attacked or attacked you since the start of the last round. The outnumbering bonuses are specific to every individual in combat not to the number of combatants in the overall fight. Is it more complex… sure. But it’s worth it. Because folks have to really think about who they fight and even a herbalist with a dagger can make the difference in combat. You don’t have to be optimized to contribute meaningfully.

Players need to keep track of their own bonuses. I remind players of penalties and outnumbering. Half the amount of stuff for me to remember as a DM. Honestly it’s a question of practice and building rules up slowly. Don’t forget a player is likely to be using the same rules repeatedly. It’s not too hard to learn. In fact you want players to make decisions - move or not move, engage A or B, charge or not, dual wield or not those then give the bonuses or penalties as appropriate. I find because of how dangerous combat can be players will remember their bonuses for the most part. If you think there are a lot of bonuses here you should try playing 3e D&D

Regarding your example of spells, there aren’t actually that many modifiers to spell casting. They are mainly equipment based and perhaps a couple of talents which will apply every time. Again I find players usually fight to remember these and they will take actions to try and obtain them. (Setting people on fire for bright wizards for instance)

Don’t use core Advantage rules. Switch to Group Advantage from Up In Arms. It is a substantial improvement and removes an entire raft of complicated unnecessary bonuses.

If you use Foundry this is much easier because most bonuses and penalties are factored in.

Finally, if you don’t like something just take it out. If you don’t want environment modifiers to spells, remove them. If you don’t care if people move and shoot just remove the penalty. You can play a system without modifiers but then we’re back to something with the combat tactics of 5e which is one of the reasons I love to play WFRP 4e.

 

[TheSword]

I find the 4e system too crunchy and quirky, and will start a TOW campaign this fall. But I still want to recommend C7s amazing line of 4e books, they are filled to the brim with great lore, fluff and ideas and really make the Old World come alive. Imho they are useful no matter what system you use for your Warhammer fantasy fix. And I can say without a doubt that 4e has the best (and most grimly hilarious) chapters for disease and infection of any rpg I’ve read, if a bit overcrunched.

And yes, a 4.5 edition with a little bit of streamlining and straightening out quirks would be amazing. It can still be crunchy, just more playable.

What are some of the quirks would you change in a 4.5? I won’t lie, the quirkiness is a feature not a bug for me, but I am interested as to what you would change?

You’re totally right on the books. I’m using a lot of the stuff from Lustria for my next run through of Tomb of Annihilation. The characters, the strange hooks and environments. So many good ideas.

The same applies to TOW. Probably a bit too streamlined for me - for all the reasons I gave in my previous post - but there is so much great atmosphere in there. Really looking forward to the adventures in the same way I converted all the 1e, 2e and 3e adventures to 4e.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

....

Don’t use core Advantage rules. Switch to Group Advantage from Up In Arms. It is a substantial improvement and removes an entire raft of complicated unnecessary bonuses.

Wonderful reply, thanks so much for the details!

Can you talk more to this I snipped above? What do mean by many unnecessary bonuses? What were they and why do you feel they were unnecessary?

 

[TheSword]

Wonderful reply, thanks so much for the details!

Can you talk more to this I snipped above? What do mean by many unnecessary bonuses? What were they and why do you feel they were unnecessary?

So the core advantage rules were designed to create a sense of momentum in combat. Earlier editions were accused for being to whiffly - you could spend round after round ineffectually whaling on your opponent to no avail. Instead advantage meant every time you won an opposed test you would gain cumulative +10 bonus to all your checks until you lost a check or took damage. Because in 4e you roll to defend as well as attack it became easy to build a substantial amount of advantage in only a round or two. Particularly if facing weaker opponents.

Firstly tracking a continuously changing bonus for every foe on an individual basis every round is frankly ridiculous. Even in small combats it becomes laborious.

Secondly it can easily build to points at which you become ridiculously likely land every one of your attacks and deflect any incoming ones.

The opposed nature of combat in WFRP already means damaging foes is much more likely, particularly with crits working even on failed attacks and on defense rolls.

Lastly it can be abused/countered in some really weird ways. A dart spell which only does 1w could strip advantage off multiple foes. While a wizard could defend with their staff against several foes and then get a massive bonus to cast a spell - which makes no sense in the fiction.

All in all it’s a pretty naughty word mechanic particularly when compared to how awesome and simple the Group Advantage rules are.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

So the core advantage rules were designed to create a sense of momentum in combat. Earlier editions were accused for being to whiffly - you could spend round after round ineffectually whaling on your opponent to no avail. Instead advantage meant every time you won an opposed test you would gain cumulative +10 bonus to all your checks until you lost a check or took damage. Because in 4e you roll to defend as well as attack it became easy to build a substantial amount of advantage in only a round or two. Particularly if facing weaker opponents.

...

All in all it’s a pretty naughty word mechanic particularly when compared to how awesome and simple the Group Advantage rules are.

Again, thank you, that was awesome and very clear. Sounds like Group Advantage is good stuff.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

What are some of the quirks would you change in a 4.5? I won’t lie, the quirkiness is a feature not a bug for me, but I am interested as to what you would change?

You’re totally right on the books. I’m using a lot of the stuff from Lustria for my next run through of Tomb of Annihilation. The characters, the strange hooks and environments. So many good ideas.

The same applies to TOW. Probably a bit too streamlined for me - for all the reasons I gave in my previous post - but there is so much great atmosphere in there. Really looking forward to the adventures in the same way I converted all the 1e, 2e and 3e adventures to 4e.

Well, take a game like Pathfinder 2e that I think is very crunchy. Despite the crunch, it has unified mechanics, is well structured and organized, and feels streamlined and playable despite the chrunchorama.

WFRP4e feels like the opposite, despite being less crunchy. It’s badly organized and structured, is very fiddly in places it doesn’t need to be, advantage group or not is not well implemented, the advancement system is once again fiddly. The system is unintuitive and demands that both gm and players engage really hard with commitment with the system.

I have a couple of players that have no problem groking and making informed mechanical character choices in mid crunch systems like D&D5e and Savage Worlds (my favourite game). But while they are happy to read a bit to get a new system, I would never even try to subject them to the time commitment and the reading of lots and lots of badly organized text necessary in 4e to make informed choices about character and gameplay.

What I’m saying is that a 4.5 doesn’t need to uncrunch the game much, just make it more coherent, accessible and intuitively playable.

 

[TheSword]

Well, take a game like Pathfinder 2e that I think is very crunchy. Despite the crunch, it has unified mechanics, is well structured and organized, and feels streamlined and playable despite the chrunchorama.

WFRP4e feels like the opposite, despite being less crunchy. It’s badly organized and structured, is very fiddly in places it doesn’t need to be, advantage group or not is not well implemented, the advancement system is once again fiddly. The system is unintuitive and demands that both gm and players engage really hard with commitment with the system.

I have a couple of players that have no problem groking and making informed mechanical character choices in mid crunch systems like D&D5e and Savage Worlds (my favourite game). But while they are happy to read a bit to get a new system, I would never even try to subject them to the time commitment and the reading of lots and lots of badly organized text necessary in 4e to make informed choices about character and gameplay.

What I’m saying is that a 4.5 doesn’t need to uncrunch the game much, just make it more coherent, accessible and intuitively playable.

Ok that makes sense. I couldn’t disagree more with you, but you’re clear about your reasons.

For me advancement is extremely straightforward. You advance anything on your character sheet a point at a time and if it’s not in your career it costs double and requires a trainer. I don’t now how an advancement system can be simpler than that. Pathfinder’s multitude of feat trees on the other hand is far more complicated and requires much more research in comparison.

In terms of layout, it goes: character creation; careers; skills and talents; combat; DM stuff; religion; magic; world building; equipment and bestiary. It’s a rulebook that follows a pretty standard template of all single book rules including Pathfinder. Perhaps with the exception that equipment is seen as a continuation of world building seems a pretty reasonable and minor thing.

I don’t know what you mean by group advantage being badly implemented. I find it delightful and it adds a level of team work and cooperation that I don’t see in other games. I’ve taught three groups WFRP 4e (one group of non-gamers) and they all picked it up easier because it’s a system that relies less on gimmicks/powers and more on representing what characters want to do.

I don’t get the badly organized text criticism. I think the core book well deserved its gold ENnie for best writing.