WHFR 4e - Are Wizards playable?

Cubicle 7 // 2018
fluminor
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 1:30 pm

Fri May 24, 2019 2:17 pm

Hello,

Just posting here a thread I already posted in a bunch of other sites, because I would like to collect as many replies/opinions as possible.

I went through the rules of WFRP 4th edition, and read some posts from people who have played one/several sessions. My impression is that playing a Wizard is going to lead to a lot of frustration.

Broadly speaking, this is because casting spells is either extremely difficult and risky, if the spell has a high CN, or is somewhat difficult and somewhat risky (or money wise expensive if you choose to use ingredients) but the spell's effect is quite limited.

I hope I am getting the rules wrong.

A human wizard will have a starting Int of about 40, plus ten advances in Language Magick +10, so he can cast a CN0 spell half of the times (at no risk since ingredients are free) the other times he fails. This includes spells like Dart, a missile with +0 damage. With a WP bonus of 4, and an average SL of +2 conditional on casting (i.e. rolling 20-29), this means about 1 damage to someone with Toughness bonus 4 and AP 1. If you manage to cast. Strategically useful to reset advantage to some enemy, maybe, but it would take ages to kill someone.

Things can go slightly better if you build some advantage, for example by using intuition, or defending on an opposed melee roll - and in this case, using a staff can help being it a Defensive weapon. But as soon as you get 1 wound your advantage resets, and being someone with a low T, no armor, and possibly dressed in a way that screams "I am a wizard", not to count visibly mumbling, you are going to be a preferential target, so I doubt one can count much on having more than +1 advantage, maybe.

Am I getting the rules wrong?

With about 1000 XP one can move to the second tier of the Wizard career and get to arcane magic: 250 to boost characteristics, 200/300 to buy talents, 100 to buy 5 advances in a couple of skills you initially neglected, 100 to move to tier 2 career, 100 to buy Arcane Magic, 100 to buy one spell, and say another 250XP to buy 10 more advances in Language Magick). So now you have Language Magick = 40+20=60. You can now try to cast the newly acquired spell Bolt with a CN4. Note that 1) you fail 70% of the times, or 60% if you have 1 advantage, etc. 2) 10% of the times you cause a minor miscast, with "minor" consequences like "you gain 1d10 Bleeding conditions", unless you spend 4 shillings of ingredients every time to try to cast the spell. The result is, on average, casting one Bolt spell about every 3 rounds at a cost of 12 shillings, which is 80% of your income. Assuming nobody kills you first - I suppose at this stage of the game encountering enemies with WS of 50 is not uncommon, and those can cut you wide open with a single blow.

Am I getting the rules wrong?

Some people in some forum recommended taking the Intuitive Diction and Perfect Pitch talents. But these are either not available to the wizard career, or available only at tier 3 (good luck getting there). And using Endeavors to buy talents outside your career costs a ton of money, which you don't have, and is very unlikely to succeed (about 20-25% success rate for the first attempt). Even assuming you can take either of those talents, which I think you cannot, the math changes by 10% odds. Meh.

Am I getting the rules wrong?

But hey, there is Channeling. You can channel a spell for 1+ rounds to then be able to cast it with a CN of 0. The problem is, channeling has much higher odds of fumble for every round you channel, and if you do, you roll on the major miscast table (minor with ingredients). You also roll minor miscast if you are interrupted by being hit, hearing loud noises, etc. And you also roll minor miscast if you fail the casting of the spell after you channeled, which in our case means 40% of the times.

Am I getting the rules wrong?

So in principle I like the idea of making magic risky. I also like the idea of making magic not always reliable. And I also like the idea of requiring more than 1 round to case potent spells. I have played Rolemaster for years, so yeah, i am ok with taking 2+ rounds to cast a spell. But when I look at the numbers, I think the devs got the math wrong, making magic too risky and too unreliable. Or they tailored the math for a wizard with 10,000 XP. The examples I made are for combat spells but the math is the same for non-combat spells.

Please tell me I am wrong. And in any case, if you have some ideas of how to start/develop a better wizard, let me know.

(I am not going to comment on prayers because I think there the rules/careers are even more frustrating, not to mention huge oversights, like the fact that priests of the God of healing do not have a single miracle to heal normal wounds).
fluminor
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 1:30 pm

Fri May 24, 2019 3:50 pm

One good news

One thing that I missed is that Arcane spells gain special effects from each college of magic. For example, a Bolt cast by a Fire Wizard would also apply Ablaze I condition on the target (pag 247, thanks to Andy Leighton for pointing this to me). This makes Arcane spells more powerful and is good news (yay!). It's like a ray of sun in a stormy day, but still good news and better than nothing.
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

Fri May 24, 2019 8:48 pm

Regarding casting Dart: the casting itself is a language check- it doesn't state what the difficulty is. this is.....up to the GM i guess. so it's probably the odds you think it is. however, dart is a magic missile and you add the SLs and your wizard's willpower bonus to damage, so it's probably like 6 damage in your example assuming a 30-ish WP.

Regarding miscasts: you can only miscast by failing the language check, not the spell difficulty (i THINK, it's a bit vague in areas but the roll is a language roll, so the roll is where you have to fumble IMO) so you have a MUCH lower chance of a miscast. this does mean there's a good chance of you failing to cast the spell itself though.

Regarding the numbers: yes, they got the numbers wrong. mathwise, 4th edition is kind of a mess and it'd been noticed that when the devs describe their ideal game they don't seem to bother playing the rules as-is so much as changing them as the scene warrants for them.

I hope this info is helpful for you in playing the game.
CapnZapp
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Sat May 25, 2019 7:25 am

No you're not wrong. Wizards are essentially borked in this edition.
macd21
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:28 am

Sat May 25, 2019 10:23 am

fluminor wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 2:17 pm
Hello,

Just posting here a thread I already posted in a bunch of other sites, because I would like to collect as many replies/opinions as possible.

I went through the rules of WFRP 4th edition, and read some posts from people who have played one/several sessions. My impression is that playing a Wizard is going to lead to a lot of frustration.

Broadly speaking, this is because casting spells is either extremely difficult and risky, if the spell has a high CN, or is somewhat difficult and somewhat risky (or money wise expensive if you choose to use ingredients) but the spell's effect is quite limited.

I hope I am getting the rules wrong.

A human wizard will have a starting Int of about 40, plus ten advances in Language Magick +10, so he can cast a CN0 spell half of the times (at no risk since ingredients are free) the other times he fails. This includes spells like Dart, a missile with +0 damage. With a WP bonus of 4, and an average SL of +2 conditional on casting (i.e. rolling 20-29), this means about 1 damage to someone with Toughness bonus 4 and AP 1. If you manage to cast. Strategically useful to reset advantage to some enemy, maybe, but it would take ages to kill someone.

Things can go slightly better if you build some advantage, for example by using intuition, or defending on an opposed melee roll - and in this case, using a staff can help being it a Defensive weapon. But as soon as you get 1 wound your advantage resets, and being someone with a low T, no armor, and possibly dressed in a way that screams "I am a wizard", not to count visibly mumbling, you are going to be a preferential target, so I doubt one can count much on having more than +1 advantage, maybe.

Am I getting the rules wrong?
Amusingly, there tends to be people arguing that they're too powerful as much as there's people complaining that they're too weak.

Regarding Dart, no, it's not great at causing damage. But that's not really what it's for. It is, as you point out above, good at stripping advantage from people, and that's its main benefit. Take your hypothetical character above who has a 50% chance of hitting someone - that remains the case no matter how dangerous your opponent, and no matter how much advantage he has. What's more, for every 2SL you get on your casting roll, you get to hit another target. It also doesn't care about things like cover.
fluminor wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 2:17 pm
With about 1000 XP one can move to the second tier of the Wizard career and get to arcane magic: 250 to boost characteristics, 200/300 to buy talents, 100 to buy 5 advances in a couple of skills you initially neglected, 100 to move to tier 2 career, 100 to buy Arcane Magic, 100 to buy one spell, and say another 250XP to buy 10 more advances in Language Magick). So now you have Language Magick = 40+20=60. You can now try to cast the newly acquired spell Bolt with a CN4. Note that 1) you fail 70% of the times, or 60% if you have 1 advantage, etc. 2) 10% of the times you cause a minor miscast, with "minor" consequences like "you gain 1d10 Bleeding conditions", unless you spend 4 shillings of ingredients every time to try to cast the spell. The result is, on average, casting one Bolt spell about every 3 rounds at a cost of 12 shillings, which is 80% of your income. Assuming nobody kills you first - I suppose at this stage of the game encountering enemies with WS of 50 is not uncommon, and those can cut you wide open with a single blow.

Am I getting the rules wrong?
Personally I don't think Bolt is the first spell you should be getting after going up to the second tier - it's more something you get at the end of the career, once you've brought up your attributes and skills a bit. But what you seem to be missing is channelling, and the impact of the spell. I'd take Aethyric Attunement twice, in order to have a very good chance of channelling the spell in one round (and then casting it on the second). With channelling, all SLs you roll get to add to overcasting. So say someone channels in round 1, then casts in round 2, rolling against your above character's LM of 60 (I think it should be higher before you get the spell, but whatever) and rolling a 20. Thats 4SL, so you fire off 3 Bolts doing 12 damage each (plus the additional effect like setting your target on fire, depending on your colour of magic). And again - your opponent is unlikely to have any counter to this.
CapnZapp
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Sun May 26, 2019 3:04 am

macd21 wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 10:23 am
Amusingly, there tends to be people arguing that they're too powerful as much as there's people complaining that they're too weak.
I find nothing amusing in the fact that you are attempting to relativize by pointing out mistakes made by newcomers. Almost every rule has been misinterpreted at least once by somebody. That does not mean you can draw (in this case) the conclusion "okay so magic is probably pretty balanced then" that Mac so dearly wants us to.

It is not amusing how the WFRP4 rules are so exceptionally obtuse and difficult that more people than usual might think Wizards are too powerful. Far likelier than the conclusion Mac wants us to draw is the possibility they just play the game wrong (where "wrong" doesn't mean badwrongfun, but "not according to the rules as written". We'll come back to this shortly, by the way).

In fact, just about the only thing I find amusing is how Mac remains so dedicated to ignoring every flaw there is in this game.
Regarding Dart, no, it's not great at causing damage. But that's not really what it's for. It is, as you point out above, good at stripping advantage from people, and that's its main benefit. Take your hypothetical character above who has a 50% chance of hitting someone - that remains the case no matter how dangerous your opponent, and no matter how much advantage he has. What's more, for every 2SL you get on your casting roll, you get to hit another target. It also doesn't care about things like cover.
The main benefit is to rack up advantage of your own. Forget about channelling (and the XP you need to spend to get decent at it) - simply Dart people instead, and once you've amassed a truckload of Advantage, you can attempt to cast whatever spell you want.

You should find that this approach has a clear advantage: you aren't useless while you ramp up, which you are if you use Channelling.

The simplest advice I have is:
a) if you fancy casting spells out of combat, then do by all means get Channelling. When time is not of the essence, you can pretty much cast whatever spell you want, since it matters little whether your channelling takes one round or six.
b) other than that, playing the Advantage game is much better than Channelling since it makes almost every action you take stack. Meaning all your successful and won Tests pile up for your eventual big spell. Channelling in contrast doesn't stack with anything, does not do anything and never grants you any advantage. Consider the basic fact you need to stay alive - few adventuring mages have the luxury of casting their spells unbothered by bandits or greenskins - each time you successfully parry or dodge you gain another Advantage which you can use to cast but not to channel.
c) Dart is actually pretty great since in combat you should pretty much forget about spells with a higher CN than 0, at least initially. Just spam CN 0 spells and let the "game of Advantage" do all the "channelling" for you.
But what you seem to be missing is channelling, and the impact of the spell.
With channelling, all SLs you roll get to add to overcasting.
What Mac seems to be missing is that overcasting clearly applies to Casting Tests only. Page 238.

Now, there's a fair chance he's going to come running and talk about his IRC chats with the devs, to which I have only two things to say: it isn't in the rulebook and it isn't in the latest errata.

(Boosting Channelling does sound like an excellent official errata, though, so it's not that I mind the actual idea, to allow channelling SLs count for overcasting!)

Zapp

PS. Here's a post (Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:17 pm) from the dormant Strike to Stun forums that might help jog your memory, Mac:
macd21 wrote:Someone on RPG.net quoted a response on magic from one of the developers:
Excess SLs on Channeling don't do anything, but all SLs on the subsequent Casting Test count for over casting (i.e treat the spell as CN 0).
You also use the casting SL for damage."
So, you channel until you have enough SLs to cast the spell. Any extra SLs from channelling are irrelevant.
CapnZapp
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Sun May 26, 2019 3:13 am

Orin J. wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 8:48 pm
Regarding casting Dart: the casting itself is a language check- it doesn't state what the difficulty is. this is.....up to the GM i guess. so it's probably the odds you think it is.
It's possible they forgot to specify this but combat tests are clearly intended to be "Challenging", that is with a +0 modifier.
Orin J. wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 8:48 pm
however, dart is a magic missile and you add the SLs and your wizard's willpower bonus to damage, so it's probably like 6 damage in your example assuming a 30-ish WP.
Yes, if you compare to a regular Sword it deals 4 damage plus the wielder's attribute (Strength in this case) which often ends up as +7 (plus success levels).

This particular magic missile is rated as Damage 0, but this still doesn't mean +0. Just as Orin says, it often ends up as +3 (plus success levels).

PS. Of course player characters who does a lot of fighting or casting likely end up with a +4 or even a +5 modifier. The +3 in these examples is just because the average human starts with 30 in all Characteristics.
fluminor
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 1:30 pm

Mon May 27, 2019 7:42 pm

Orin J. wrote:
Fri May 24, 2019 8:48 pm
Regarding casting Dart: the casting itself is a language check- it doesn't state what the difficulty is. this is.....up to the GM i guess. so it's probably the odds you think it is. however, dart is a magic missile and you add the SLs and your wizard's willpower bonus to damage, so it's probably like 6 damage in your example assuming a 30-ish WP.

Regarding miscasts: you can only miscast by failing the language check, not the spell difficulty (i THINK, it's a bit vague in areas but the roll is a language roll, so the roll is where you have to fumble IMO) so you have a MUCH lower chance of a miscast. this does mean there's a good chance of you failing to cast the spell itself though.

Regarding the numbers: yes, they got the numbers wrong. mathwise, 4th edition is kind of a mess and it'd been noticed that when the devs describe their ideal game they don't seem to bother playing the rules as-is so much as changing them as the scene warrants for them.

I hope this info is helpful for you in playing the game.
Thank you, this is useful!
fluminor
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 1:30 pm

Tue May 28, 2019 12:17 pm

Thank you everyone for your replies. They got me thinking and i found them very useful.

My impression so far reading the rules and discussing it with people who have played the game is that channeling is too risky, so I'll probably just skip it altogether... it's just too easy to miscast when resorting to channeling, and it can easily take 3+ round to cast a spell (2+ to channel) even when channeling skill is high and CN is not too high.

For example, casting a CN4 spell with the Aethiric Attunement talent and with channeling skill 70 (including the bonus from Aethiric Attunement) is going to require 2 rounds (1 of channel, 1 of casting) with about 39% probability (roll below 40), 3 rounds with about 41% probability, else 4 or more rounds with 20% probability... with the risk of miscast if hurt at any time and the risk of miscast when failing the casting test. Imagine what it takes to cast a CN=8 spell, or CN=10. So channeling is really only for non-combat imho. And even then, it's often cheaper and less risky to spend XP on increasing Language Magick and trying to cast the spell in one round than it is to channel it.

In hindsight, I think what makes one feel that wizards are weak is also the fact that each lore has only 8 specific spells, and only a few of those are good combat-related skills. So if you take Fire Lore, you immediately think "hell every decent combat spell has a CN of at least 8, I'll never be able to cast any of those". The truth is that playing a bright wizard means for the most part using petty magic and, after spending 1,000+ XP, perhaps using a few arcane spells with the addition of setting enemies on fire. One just has to set the expectations right. Having 1-2 more Lore-specific spells with CN lower than 6 (e.g. a fire damaging spell with CN of 3-4, a light healing spell with CN of 3-4, etc...) would probably help give a different impression to people like me who read the rules for the first time.
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

Tue May 28, 2019 12:56 pm

Well, channeling will get a lot more useful in later phases of gameplay when you have enough ranks in it and some talents ranked so they give you 2-3 extra SL per test. of course, by that point the game might be trivial anywyas, but that's another conversation entirely!....
fluminor
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 1:30 pm

Tue May 28, 2019 2:44 pm

new user

Hi all,

Here are somewhat random rule clarifications about spells.

1) On page 247 under the Lore of Fire description on reads that "you MAY influct the +1 Ablaze condition on anyone targeted by spells from the lore of fire". This should include all Arcane spells, a described at page 242. What is the "MAY" standing for? I am assuming the caster gets to decide, for example, he may choose not set a friend on fire when using Cauterize on him. Is that so?

2) Overcasting depends on the result of a language - Magick test. Suppose I want to cast a spell with CN4 and my languge - Magick skill is 60. I need to roll below 30 if I want to cast the spell. Say I roll 29. This is a SL of 6-2=4 on the language test. This means I can, for example, triple the duration of the spell, right? So, does this mean that when successfully casting a spell with CN4 one always scores at least +4SL (when not using channeling)?

3) Are undead struck by light magic getting the blind condition? Can they become blind at all? It does not say in their description.

4) Celestial Lore, page 248" "Damage ignore Armour Points from metal armour, and will arc to all other targets within 2 yards, except those with the Arcane Magic (Heavens)Talent, inflicting hits with a Damage equal to your Willpower Bonus, handled like a magical missile".

My questions are:
4a) can the caster decide whether the spell arcs or not, or which targets it arcs to?
4b) the damage is just WP, meaning the target will suffer WP - his Toughness minus leather armor? It does not sound like much unless WP is really, really high.

5) Lore of Shadow "Any protective spells you may cast wreath you in shadows and billow smoke, making your body insubstantial, possibly even allowing blades to pass through you SEEMINGLY without harm". How do you play this effect in practice?

6) In the minor miscast table, roll 46-50, "your clothes seem to writhe with a mind of their own. Receive 1 Entangled Condition with a Strength of 1d10×5 to resist". :shock: It's a typo, I hope.

Thanks in advance!
CapnZapp
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Wed May 29, 2019 3:24 am

fluminor wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 2:44 pm
new user

Hi all,

Here are somewhat random rule clarifications about spells.

1) On page 247 under the Lore of Fire description on reads that "you MAY influct the +1 Ablaze condition on anyone targeted by spells from the lore of fire". This should include all Arcane spells, a described at page 242. What is the "MAY" standing for? I am assuming the caster gets to decide, for example, he may choose not set a friend on fire when using Cauterize on him. Is that so?

2) Overcasting depends on the result of a language - Magick test. Suppose I want to cast a spell with CN4 and my languge - Magick skill is 60. I need to roll below 30 if I want to cast the spell. Say I roll 29. This is a SL of 6-2=4 on the language test. This means I can, for example, triple the duration of the spell, right? So, does this mean that when successfully casting a spell with CN4 one always scores at least +4SL (when not using channeling)?

3) Are undead struck by light magic getting the blind condition? Can they become blind at all? It does not say in their description.

4) Celestial Lore, page 248" "Damage ignore Armour Points from metal armour, and will arc to all other targets within 2 yards, except those with the Arcane Magic (Heavens)Talent, inflicting hits with a Damage equal to your Willpower Bonus, handled like a magical missile".

My questions are:
4a) can the caster decide whether the spell arcs or not, or which targets it arcs to?
4b) the damage is just WP, meaning the target will suffer WP - his Toughness minus leather armor? It does not sound like much unless WP is really, really high.

5) Lore of Shadow "Any protective spells you may cast wreath you in shadows and billow smoke, making your body insubstantial, possibly even allowing blades to pass through you SEEMINGLY without harm". How do you play this effect in practice?

6) In the minor miscast table, roll 46-50, "your clothes seem to writhe with a mind of their own. Receive 1 Entangled Condition with a Strength of 1d10×5 to resist". :shock: It's a typo, I hope.

Thanks in advance!
1. Yes, "may" indicates you have a choice. And yes, it applies to both Fire spells and Arcane spells (for a Fire mage).
2. No. The rules distinguish between 4 SL and +4 SL.
This passage from the Overcasting rule (page 238) makes the design intent clear:
You may choose the same option more than once. For instance, if
you achieved + 4 SL above your Casting Number on a spell with
a Target of 1, you may now Target 3 individuals.
My emphasis. To overcast you need SLs in excess of the CN.

Other rules passages fail to make this clear, so I can see the confusion.

Do note that Damage stacks with Overcasting. That is, if you cast a simple CN 0 Dart and gain 4 SLs, not only does it mean you can strike three people, all three of them suffer +4 damage. (Two other ways of saying this: a) You don't "use up" SLs when you choose overcasting effects. b) You don't have to choose between Overcasting and extra damage from SLs)

3. This is an example of looking for a rule that isn't there. It is a very common occurrence in all kinds of rpgs. In this case, you assume undead don't use regular vision, and so you assume there must be a rule saying "Undead are still affected by the Blinded condition" (or the opposite).

In all these cases it's much better to assume omission is intentional, not accidental, since it keeps down rules bloat. In short: the rules should not need to state all the things that does not apply, only the rules that do apply.

Even shorter: since the rules doesn't say Undead are immune to Blinded, they are not immune to Blinded.

4. No if the rules say "will" that means they must, as opposed to when they say "can" or "may".

The spell always arcs, and always hits all creatures close by (allies and foes alike) - except other Heavens mages.

When something has a "Damage" rating that always includes Success Levels. A Sword has Damage 4, plus Strength Bonus, plus SLs.

In this case, the arc of lightning has Damage 0, plus WP Bonus, plus SLs (from the Casting Test).

5. First off, yes, it's basically unregulated by actual rules. I believe the design intent (correct me if I'm wrong) is for it to be fluff only - a descriptive effect that makes you look cool, but that does not help or hinder you in any way.

Our group isn't content with that. We give these Shadow spells a Ward rating of 10, per the monster trait Ward. We also add a special Overcasting effect that improves the Ward rating by 1.

(So if you gain 4 SLs in excess of the CN, you could improve the Ward two steps, to Ward 8; or maybe by one step and double the duration. etc)

6. Short answer: I don't see any changes to the Miscast tables in the latest (February) errata.

What about it warrants the :shock: smiley? (I don't immediately see why a single low-to-medium Entangle condition is so bad. There sure is plenty worse to worry about on them Miscast tables...)
fluminor
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 1:30 pm

Thu May 30, 2019 9:30 am

About the smiley: my mistake. I am still thinking of Strength as something that goes from 1 to 10, as in the first edition of WFRP. So a Strength of 50 looked pretty scary! In effect it means the highest Strength bonus is going to be 5, so I see how this can be quite ok.
User avatar
Yepesnopes
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:29 am

Thu May 30, 2019 9:34 am

Forget channelling and forget WP. Maximize Int and language magick and get as many instances of the talent Instinctive Diction as you can. All this and a little bit of advantage and in combat you are going to be blasting enemies by the scores...
CapnZapp
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Thu May 30, 2019 2:24 pm

fluminor wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 9:30 am
About the smiley: my mistake. I am still thinking of Strength as something that goes from 1 to 10, as in the first edition of WFRP. So a Strength of 50 looked pretty scary! In effect it means the highest Strength bonus is going to be 5, so I see how this can be quite ok.
There is no upper limit to Characteristics or Skills in 4E.

In practice, few characters will go much higher than 5-6 or so, of course, unless the campaign racks up some serious amounts of XP. But if the player sets her mind to it, they can do it much earlier.
CapnZapp
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Thu May 30, 2019 2:26 pm

Yepesnopes wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 9:34 am
Forget channelling and forget WP. Maximize Int and language magick and get as many instances of the talent Instinctive Diction as you can. All this and a little bit of advantage and in combat you are going to be blasting enemies by the scores...
I would advise getting either Parry or Dodge too... (Not only is it healthy to not get pulped, avoiding damage speeds up the Advantage too...!)
Solberg
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 11:49 pm

Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:37 pm

Interesting read this thread... I don't understand what you gain from taking aethyric attunement more than once?
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:02 am

Solberg wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:37 pm
Interesting read this thread... I don't understand what you gain from taking aethyric attunement more than once?
Most every talent gives you a bonus success level on a related test, in this case channeling. It makes it very easy to pass tests by huge margins after some leveling.
Solberg
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 11:49 pm

Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:42 am

Thanks Orin I had completely missed that rule! My players will love this...... hate it when they are Happy.... NOT very warhammer like
fluminor
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 1:30 pm

Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:05 pm

So... it’s been a while since my first post. Has anyone come up with a reasonably simple and effective way to fix magic?

It’s not just a matter of mages being weak. The current rules force a mage to focus on depth instead of breadth, to be able to survive. The result being mages that are, perhaps, decent at casting an extremely limited set of non-petty spells. Which is not fun.
Post Reply