Warhammer frpg - 2e vs 4e

[Ancalagon]

Well that’s true, However the possible swing is greater. Sure the result is more likely to favour the most skilled. However what you don’t get is a point where it’s impossible to win.

It took me a while to get my head round the difference in combat. In d&d enemies attack you and whittle your hp down. You expect your foes to hit you and as long as you don’t drop to 0 you’re fine. You generally know that no single enemy is going to do more than x damage on one go and you can heal as you go.

In WFRP 4e, any attack could lop an arm off or take your eye. The very act of getting hit is the risk - rather than how much damage you can take. Sure you may not die but you can suffer.

As with all things, randomness affects PCs more than NPCs so even though 80% of goblin hits will do nothing to that weapon master. Those precious few will be important. I think that sums up why I like WFRP 4e combat.

As to your previous post of why would the goblin attack when it is likely to make the swordsman better able to hurt him? If the goblin doesn’t attack, it has zero chance of defeating the fighter. If it does it has a small chance of winning. From the goblins point of view it may be that a slim chance is better than zero. Goblins should be cowardly on their own. Only attacking when outnumbering, drugged on fungus or attacking with surprise or from hiding.

So
This "any attack may be lethal" is not new to 4e, it's pretty standard warhammer fare. In 2e, you rolled a d10 for damage and if you rolled max, it triggered "Ulrich's Fury". You rolled again to hit to "confirm" the effect, and if it hit, you rolled another d10 for damage - and if that one rolls max, you just keep rolling (no need for confirmation). So a single goblin arrow can kill a powerful PC. This lethality isn't new to 4e, and I don't think it fixes the problem I have with this "attacking a superior foe helps your foe" notion.

It's bad enough for a goblin to attack a master swordsman in any system. We don't need the "goblin attack helping the swordsman killing the goblin" layer on top of it! So not only is it bad design, it's superfluous.

 

[TheSword]

So
This "any attack may be lethal" is not new to 4e, it's pretty standard warhammer fare. In 2e, you rolled a d10 for damage and if you rolled max, it triggered "Ulrich's Fury". You rolled again to hit to "confirm" the effect, and if it hit, you rolled another d10 for damage - and if that one rolls max, you just keep rolling (no need for confirmation). So a single goblin arrow can kill a powerful PC. This lethality isn't new to 4e, and I don't think it fixes the problem I have with this "attacking a superior foe helps your foe" notion.

It's bad enough for a goblin to attack a master swordsman in any system. We don't need the "goblin attack helping the swordsman killing the goblin" layer on top of it! So not only is it bad design, it's superfluous.

Why is strange that a clumsy opponent can leave themselves more open to attack by swinging awkwardly at a superior opponent?

Is your question ‘why would the goblin bother?’ Which I think I have answered in my previous post. Or is it ‘Why can your attack leave you easier to hit?’ In which case I’ve answered it in this post.

 

[macd21]

I just find it strange that, in warhammer 4e, the goblin attacking the swordsman is making it worse for the goblin. It's not just "oh the goblin is probably going to miss" or "oh, the goblin will do a bit of damage but the swordsman is too tough to be seriously hurt by one goblin attack". No, the goblin attack's will most probably actively help the swordsman, and actively hurt the goblin's chance of winning. From a game design principle, I find this .... wrong.

From a setting point of view, it's an abstract representation of the goblin, being the lesser swordsman, exposing himself to attack when he strikes, the effects of morale, physical exhaustion etc. It's the sort of thing you see in fictional swordfights between a master and a novice - the novice strikes, but the master easily evades his blows, parries his thrusts with ease, and eventually the novice is left flailing wildly and usually dispatched with a kick to the arse.

From a game design point of view, it results in either very fast combats, as the master quickly defeats the novice, or it results in complex combats, as the lesser combatant tries to even the odds. Simply attacking is a losing proposition, so you have to use alternatives. Either way, you don't get a boring combat consisting of a long string of one simple attack after another - either the fight ends quickly, or the fight gets interesting.

It's certainly not for everybody, but a lot of people like it. It makes every round interesting, speeds up combat, results in a 'back and forth' feeling as advantage swings one way and the other, and encourages variety in combat.

 

[Crusadius]

Obviously a single goblin should not be attacking a swordsman, master or not (unless cornered and have no choice). They should be running away and finding other goblins to join together and return to attack in numbers. Even 2E mentions that they have a "penchant for running when battles turn against them". Also their BS is higher which indicates that they'd want to stand back and shoot arrows or throw rocks at the master swordsman until the swordsman falls over.

Unless you decide for your game goblins are not cowardly, and instead are foolhardy and aggressive to the point of being suicidal.

 

[Jaeger]

We’ll have to agree to disagree on the meta-currencies. I didn’t think the rarely used original Fate cut the mustard. Fate wasn’t really a meta currency because you almost never spent it. At least fortune and resolve mean something and get some use at the table every session.

We will - Because I think that what fate does could have been re-thought without having to break it out into four different types.

I do object to the suggestion the changes were made without logic or clear reasoning. I see that as patently untrue and a disservice to the experienced and award winning designers.

Never said that they didn't have their reasons for doing what they did with 4e. I just think that they straight-up chose badly.

What was done with WFRP 4e is not quite at the level of say WFRP 3e, Shadowrun6, or 7th Sea 2e. But 'Award winning' Game designers can absolutely get it wrong.


At 1:02 in they talk about the 3e dice mechanic and at 1:02:54 Andy Law talks about how the 3e dice mechanic strongly influenced how he did d100 for 4e. Which IMHO led to a lot of increased complexity.

I couldn't disagree with this design direction more. The increased complexity of 4e will keep the game from retaining the new players and GM's it needs to keep the line going after the current WFRP fanbase has gotten all the remastered books that they want out of it.

I use a VTT and like it, because I prefer VTT. .... It’s just much much easier with a VTT…

Like I said, put down the tech, then come back after trying to run a full campaign (not just a session or two), with paper pen and bottle caps, and lets see if you hold the same opinion about 4e's complexity.

Obviously with a lot of the critiques made on this thread you just don't see the long term issues because all your long term play has used automation to deal with the fiddliness in the system.

We're critiquing what a pain it is to pick all the apples in the tree by hand, and you're sitting there in your robotic harvester saying that you don't see the issue...

I understand now why we do not see eye to eye on 4e.

 

[TheSword]

We will - Because I think that what fate does could have been re-thought without having to break it out into four different types.




Never said that they didn't have their reasons for doing what they did with 4e. I just think that they straight-up chose badly.

What was done with WFRP 4e is not quite at the level of say WFRP 3e, Shadowrun6, or 7th Sea 2e. But 'Award winning' Game designers can absolutely get it wrong.


At 1:02 in they talk about the 3e dice mechanic and at 1:02:54 Andy Law talks about how the 3e dice mechanic strongly influenced how he did d100 for 4e. Which IMHO led to a lot of increased complexity.

I couldn't disagree with this design direction more. The increased complexity of 4e will keep the game from retaining the new players and GM's it needs to keep the line going after the current WFRP fanbase has gotten all the remastered books that they want out of it.




Like I said, put down the tech, then come back after trying to run a full campaign (not just a session or two), with paper pen and bottle caps, and lets see if you hold the same opinion about 4e's complexity.

Obviously with a lot of the critiques made on this thread you just don't see the long term issues because all your long term play has used automation to deal with the fiddliness in the system.

We're critiquing what a pain it is to pick all the apples in the tree by hand, and you're sitting there in your robotic harvester saying that you don't see the issue...

I understand now why we do not see eye to eye on 4e.

Okay, if me playing a few sessions f2f is insufficient to convince you that it’s possible, that’s fair enough. I wasn’t trying to convince you though, as you’ve made your mind up. It’s more for the OP and other people watching.

If anyone is at all interested in getting examples from someone with far more 4e face to face experience than I do, then they should check out the Ratter Guild Discord. There are people playing F2F since the game came out. Who are still playing.

 

[macd21]

Yeah, there’s plenty of people playing it face to face. There’s just been an uptick of online play due to covid.

 

[Retreater]

I've recently started running 4e for a group on VTT. They have told me that if we go back to f2f, they don't want to play this system. I know it's just one person's anecdote, but to this one person, it does sour me on the system a bit.

 

[Ancalagon]

Why is strange that a clumsy opponent can leave themselves more open to attack by swinging awkwardly at a superior opponent?

That dynamic is more than amply covered by the large skill gap between the goblin and the swordsman.

Perhaps I will be able to convey my dislike by using different terms:

I don't think it's a good idea to add a mechanic to a fight that favors the most skilled combatant when they already likely to win.

 

[Ancalagon]

I've recently started running 4e for a group on VTT. They have told me that if we go back to f2f, they don't want to play this system. I know it's just one person's anecdote, but to this one person, it does sour me on the system a bit.

Hello

Thank you for your input, but I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding your post. A few questions

1: Is "they" one player, or the entire group?
2: They don't want to play this system - 4e or 2nd ed?

thanks!