Official WFRP FAQ

Cubicle 7 // 2018
sx dwarf
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:36 pm

Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:32 am

User avatar
totsuzenheni
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:38 pm

Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:36 am

More accurately a blog post called 'FAQ #1', which addresses, what seem to me to be some low hanging fruit, is online. A downloadable PDF, which is what i was expecting, will come later when Cubicle7 have put a larger collection of these FAQ blog posts online.
Last edited by totsuzenheni on Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
CapnZapp
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:10 am

sx dwarf wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:32 am
The FAQ is online!

https://www.cubicle7games.com/wfrp-faq/
Thanks for the heads-up! :)
totsuzenheni wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:36 am
More accurately a blog post called 'FAQ #1'
More like "rules we forgot to include", amirite?
If a Character’s Characteristics change permanently (due to Advancement, injury, etc.) then Wounds are recalculated to reflect that.

It’s worth noting that temporary changes to Characteristics don’t cause this recalculation
Since you forgot to actually write this rule into the rulebook, yes, it's "worth noting".
The Hardy Talent (WFRP, page 138) grants additional Wounds above the standard amount determined by a Character’s Size, equal to the Character’s Toughness Bonus.
Why not simply say "you gain additional Wounds equal to your current permanent Toughness Bonus"? Oh right, they actually did in the rulebook. So this explanation is actually harder to understand than the rule it tries to explain.

Remind me why the Size rules are buried in the Bestiary again?
Do Species Skills count as Career Skills for Advancement?

No.
Note how inelegant this is. You need to remember or write down that your 4% in Basket-Weaving isn't actually a skill you can advance.
A Character’s Species Skills, listed on WFRP page 36, reflect the cultural upbringing of the Character.
So why aren't they called Cultural Skills then?

(They had the chance to allow a Halfling raised by humans to gain the skills of their adopted human culture, but no luck.)
Think of this like how, as a child growing up in a rural town, you would be likely to learn about basic wilderness safety — checking for leeches and ticks, how to test your footing when hiking, maybe which streams are safe to drink, etc.
I'm mainly thinking of how little it would impact gameplay to skip this step, seeing that players can still advance in skills by paying extra or using Endeavours... (I can't very well justify "basic wilderness safety" as a highly restricted skill you need a Tutor from Altdorf to learn, especially if you were brought up at the edge of the forest and all your relatives are presumably woodsmen! They make it sound like they're talking about Alchemy or Law... but species skills aren't like that!)
Can I use Cavalry Weapons when unmounted?

Yes, but it’s ill-advised
For the Lance, indubitably. For the Cavalry Hammer, not so much.

How is the Cavalry Hammer a poor weapon of choice unmounted? It appears to be a perfectly useful two-handed weapon to me. I searched the blog entry for some kind of penalty but could not find any. Not even something blurry like "the GM is free to impose a -40 penalty for trying to use a cavalry weapon on foot".
How many Spells does a Wizard’s Apprentice’s Grimoire contain?
Huh. I would have thought the answer to be obvious: as many or few as the character purchases for XP. That is, at the outset of the game, nothing but Petty Spells.

Do people like already from the start restricting themselves to which spells they may later purchase? And if so, how long (into the campaign) does the character have to abide by this restriction? (If the character already by level 2 get to strike out on his own, selecting whatever spells from his chosen Lore he wants, is there a point to a Grimoire-restriction at all?)
Please jump on our Facebook page if you have any other questions you would like answered
I'd rather get eaten by a Grue than trying to battle the Facebook comments plugin, but thanks anyway.
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:50 pm

their approach to the grimore is a small concession to allow the GM to avoid the player taking spells they may not want to simply hand them right off the bat. it's an inelegant approach and a little shakey, but at this point i doubt they were thinking they needed better.

Past the grimore he has to discuss with the GM how he can get other spells, but this game make that sort of a "complain loudly until you get what you want because it's your game too!" deal with some players. which i think it the root of the problem with 4th- it's written assuming you and the players are comfortable writing the rules yourself as you play which is not how a system should be made.
CapnZapp
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:34 am

Maybe I should clarify that the section on grimoires was a genuine question, not a complaint. Isn't grimoires just as fuzzily handled in other editions? (Basically you get a "grimoire" with little further definition)

I understand the grimoire represents a "starting selection" to choose your very first spells from. Otherwise I would expect most players, once their characters have graduated their initiation, picks and chooses spells freely (obviously still with the GMs permission - but how many GMs screen an entire book's worth of spells beforehand).

My question was "since the time spent in level 1 is so very little, is there much point in being restricted by your Grimoire at all?". But maybe I should start a new thread for that...
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

Fri Jun 21, 2019 11:34 am

no i think it's a good question to ask here. and honestly i don't know there is. leveling is in a weird state for 4th, since you're explicitly given permission to bypass every requirement and restriction if you can get the GM to agree to it which leaves the grimore in a strange abribrary position. i'm not even sure i'd include it at all myself and simply press wizard players to have to either return to the college(s satellite branches) to study or find a roaming wizard that can teach them as a way to insure they can be dragged where the GM needs to go for starting new plot points.
FasterThanJesus
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:30 pm
Location: UK

Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:39 am

User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:55 pm

they're determined not to address the shield issues, i swear.
CapnZapp
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:39 pm

Whilst anyone can use a Shield, it’s still a wooden board strapped to your less dexterous arm. It’s cumbersome, and clumsy. However, if you are trained to use a Shield properly, these issues dissolve.
I call bullshit. On all of it.
Do I modify Wounds from Critical Wounds by my Toughness Bonus and Armour Points?

No. Wounds suffered due to Critical Wounds (WFRP, page 174) are in addition to other Damage caused. These Wounds are not modified by Toughness Bonus or Armour Points, are applied after the Critical Wound has been given, and cannot cause a further Critical Wound.
A simpler way to explain this is that the Wounds from the critical table is not a separate source of damage. Saying they "are in addition to other Damage caused" is perfect. Saying they're not modified is beside the point and only make it appear as if this is a source of damage that's somehow exceptional. Don't do it, simply say they're extra damage added to the incoming hit.

But then the real horror begins...
Additionally, these Wounds are suffered even if the Critical Wound is negated

You can't be serious. You mean you're supposed to generate the critical (determine a hit location*, make a d100 roll and do the table look-up) even when armour negates it?!?!?!?

*) you can skip this if the victim has uniform armor on all locations (such as "no armor").

Recall this decision immediately. It is a grave error and a huge mistake.
So, this means simply wielding a Shield activates the Defensive Quality, granting +1 SL to defend against attacks, even if you parry with a weapon in the other hand.
This on the other hand means that you do get the shield bonus even if you're using Melee(Basic), provided you use your weapon to do the parrying.

While it is evidence of a very stupid and contorted set of rules that for no reason mean shields work best if you don't use them, it does mean the classic sword & board character can rely on that +1 SL on the defensive, which is all anyone could ask for.
When a Career lists a Grouped Skill but does not designate a specialisation — for example, Melee (Any) — could a Character revisit the Skill and pick up a different Specialisation?

No. You have to choose 1 Specialisation when Advancing a Skill where you have a choice (page 118), and that choice remains in place until you leave that Career level.
This is a very silly dialog. Nobody is asking "can I interpret Skill (Any) to mean Skill (all of them)?"

Obviously the person is asking about what the last line allows. That is, if you encounter two Skill (Any) during your various career steps, you may (are allowed to / does not have to) count them as two different skills.

You'd decide to do that if you wanted both specializations. You'd decide against it if all you want is to complete your career (though in 4E you can always choose your picks of eight skills, so this is not a big deal anymore).
So, could I leave a Career Level, and re-enter the same Career Level?

Yes. Though there are few reasons to do so other than to reset the Career Specialisations chosen, and that’s rarely reason enough to do so.
Let me suggest a better answer: "No, unless you get your GMs permission. There are few reasons to do so other than to cheese Career Specialisations, so you need to explain your circumstances and persuade your GM."
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:01 pm

the only way to explain some of these rulings is they don't actually understand their own game system, which i assume isn't true because My gods but then that leaves that they just don't want to explain things if they get complex.
CapnZapp wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:39 pm
You can't be serious. You mean you're supposed to generate the critical (determine a hit location*, make a d100 roll and do the table look-up) even when armour negates it?!?!?!?

*) you can skip this if the victim has uniform armor on all locations (such as "no armor").

Recall this decision immediately. It is a grave error and a huge mistake.
So, this means simply wielding a Shield activates the Defensive Quality, granting +1 SL to defend against attacks, even if you parry with a weapon in the other hand.
This on the other hand means that you do get the shield bonus even if you're using Melee(Basic), provided you use your weapon to do the parrying.

While it is evidence of a very stupid and contorted set of rules that for no reason mean shields work best if you don't use them, it does mean the classic sword & board character can rely on that +1 SL on the defensive, which is all anyone could ask for.
so wait, i can use a shield in my off hand to parry without penalty if i have the melee(parry) skill, but at the EXACT SAME TIME i can not take that skill, parry with the weapon in my main hand (at no noticable penalties) and gain the benefits of the shield's main advantage as if it was doing the parrying. why was this done this way? this may be the first truly byzantine rules system i've read.

EDIT: this makes bucklers a much superior choice until you invest in several levels of both the parry skill and talents unless i'm missing something as the actual shield rating is less valuable than the defensive quality for actually mitigating damage.
CapnZapp
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:47 pm

My only sane reply is: "ditch their ideas for shields entirely. They worked fine, if not spectacular, in 2E"

But to at least look down your rabbit-hole (keeping safely away from falling in ;)): one reason to not settle for a Buckler is to gain the ability to deflect arrows. (Of course, if your skill at doing so is not 51% or more, then you should definitely stick to the Buckler)
macd21
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:28 am

Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:46 am

Orin J. wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:01 pm
the only way to explain some of these rulings is they don't actually understand their own game system, which i assume isn't true because My gods but then that leaves that they just don't want to explain things if they get complex.
CapnZapp wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:39 pm
You can't be serious. You mean you're supposed to generate the critical (determine a hit location*, make a d100 roll and do the table look-up) even when armour negates it?!?!?!?

*) you can skip this if the victim has uniform armor on all locations (such as "no armor").

Recall this decision immediately. It is a grave error and a huge mistake.
So, this means simply wielding a Shield activates the Defensive Quality, granting +1 SL to defend against attacks, even if you parry with a weapon in the other hand.
This on the other hand means that you do get the shield bonus even if you're using Melee(Basic), provided you use your weapon to do the parrying.

While it is evidence of a very stupid and contorted set of rules that for no reason mean shields work best if you don't use them, it does mean the classic sword & board character can rely on that +1 SL on the defensive, which is all anyone could ask for.
so wait, i can use a shield in my off hand to parry without penalty if i have the melee(parry) skill, but at the EXACT SAME TIME i can not take that skill, parry with the weapon in my main hand (at no noticable penalties) and gain the benefits of the shield's main advantage as if it was doing the parrying. why was this done this way? this may be the first truly byzantine rules system i've read.

EDIT: this makes bucklers a much superior choice until you invest in several levels of both the parry skill and talents unless i'm missing something as the actual shield rating is less valuable than the defensive quality for actually mitigating damage.
You can parry with the weapon in your main hand and get the +1 SL bonus from Defensive, but not the bonus APs. If you’re lightly armoured you may want to eat the -20 penalty to get the APs for crit negation.
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:46 am

the -20 translates into taking +2 damage, so unless you have a large shield those APs are JUST there for crit negation at that point and i don't think accepting more damage in the hopes of avoiding a random crit is a sound plan.
macd21
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:28 am

Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:01 am

Orin J. wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:46 am
the -20 translates into taking +2 damage, so unless you have a large shield those APs are JUST there for crit negation at that point and i don't think accepting more damage in the hopes of avoiding a random crit is a sound plan.
Crits are brutal, personally I think you’d be a fool not to avail of the crit negation if you have a shield and no other armor. Wounds aren’t as important in 4ed as they were in older editions, it crits that will kill or cripple you.

A true sword-n-board fighter will pick up shields man and maybe ambidextrous as well, further increasing its utility.
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:56 am

macd21 wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:01 am
Orin J. wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:46 am
the -20 translates into taking +2 damage, so unless you have a large shield those APs are JUST there for crit negation at that point and i don't think accepting more damage in the hopes of avoiding a random crit is a sound plan.
Crits are brutal, personally I think you’d be a fool not to avail of the crit negation if you have a shield and no other armor. Wounds aren’t as important in 4ed as they were in older editions, it crits that will kill or cripple you.

A true sword-n-board fighter will pick up shields man and maybe ambidextrous as well, further increasing its utility.
since according to this same FAQ, crits inflict wounds even if you negate them that's not as much help as you're claiming since there's a very meaningful chance that the extra wounds from a crit will incapacitate you with the much higher general damage in 4th ed. Which means it's back to not using the shield to parry, but having it providing the bonus while you parry with the sword anyways.
fluminor
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 1:30 pm

Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:23 am

macd21 wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:46 am
Orin J. wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:01 pm
the only way to explain some of these rulings is they don't actually understand their own game system, which i assume isn't true because My gods but then that leaves that they just don't want to explain things if they get complex.
CapnZapp wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:39 pm
You can't be serious. You mean you're supposed to generate the critical (determine a hit location*, make a d100 roll and do the table look-up) even when armour negates it?!?!?!?

*) you can skip this if the victim has uniform armor on all locations (such as "no armor").

Recall this decision immediately. It is a grave error and a huge mistake.


This on the other hand means that you do get the shield bonus even if you're using Melee(Basic), provided you use your weapon to do the parrying.

While it is evidence of a very stupid and contorted set of rules that for no reason mean shields work best if you don't use them, it does mean the classic sword & board character can rely on that +1 SL on the defensive, which is all anyone could ask for.
so wait, i can use a shield in my off hand to parry without penalty if i have the melee(parry) skill, but at the EXACT SAME TIME i can not take that skill, parry with the weapon in my main hand (at no noticable penalties) and gain the benefits of the shield's main advantage as if it was doing the parrying. why was this done this way? this may be the first truly byzantine rules system i've read.

EDIT: this makes bucklers a much superior choice until you invest in several levels of both the parry skill and talents unless i'm missing something as the actual shield rating is less valuable than the defensive quality for actually mitigating damage.
You can parry with the weapon in your main hand and get the +1 SL bonus from Defensive, but not the bonus APs. If you’re lightly armoured you may want to eat the -20 penalty to get the APs for crit negation.
I can see this as a good strategy maybe when you are at zero wounds and you have brought down to zero your armor AP in at least one location. But it’s not a fantastic strategy, you are increasing the odds of being hit by no small margin, meaning also you are giving more advantage to your opponent. I see it viable in desperate situations, for example when your opponent has so much advantage that he is going to hit anyway. If this is all shields have to offer when used to parry, it’s not much.
To me, when for the average joe parrying with a shield is harder than parrying with a weapon, there is something wrong in the rules.
macd21
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:28 am

Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:21 am

fluminor wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:23 am
I can see this as a good strategy maybe when you are at zero wounds and you have brought down to zero your armor AP in at least one location. But it’s not a fantastic strategy, you are increasing the odds of being hit by no small margin, meaning also you are giving more advantage to your opponent. I see it viable in desperate situations, for example when your opponent has so much advantage that he is going to hit anyway. If this is all shields have to offer when used to parry, it’s not much.
To me, when for the average joe parrying with a shield is harder than parrying with a weapon, there is something wrong in the rules.
Why would it be good to use it when you are at zero wounds? At that point you're prone anyway. You use it when you're at full wounds, because that's when you worry about being killed or crippled by a lucky crit. It's when you're low on Wounds that you'd switch to parrying with your main weapon (supplemented by the shield).
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:07 am

macd21 wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:21 am
fluminor wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:23 am
I can see this as a good strategy maybe when you are at zero wounds and you have brought down to zero your armor AP in at least one location. But it’s not a fantastic strategy, you are increasing the odds of being hit by no small margin, meaning also you are giving more advantage to your opponent. I see it viable in desperate situations, for example when your opponent has so much advantage that he is going to hit anyway. If this is all shields have to offer when used to parry, it’s not much.
To me, when for the average joe parrying with a shield is harder than parrying with a weapon, there is something wrong in the rules.
Why would it be good to use it when you are at zero wounds? At that point you're prone anyway. You use it when you're at full wounds, because that's when you worry about being killed or crippled by a lucky crit. It's when you're low on Wounds that you'd switch to parrying with your main weapon (supplemented by the shield).
that's a generally bad choice because at full wounds giving your opponent bonus damage is still a real risk of getting taken down to no wounds in one blow with the level of damage variance in this game. that would only start being viable after a lot of advances to boot S/T/ the hardy talent.
macd21
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:28 am

Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:23 am

Orin J. wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:07 am
that's a generally bad choice because at full wounds giving your opponent bonus damage is still a real risk of getting taken down to no wounds in one blow with the level of damage variance in this game. that would only start being viable after a lot of advances to boot S/T/ the hardy talent.
That has not been my experience at all. PCs can generally take a couple of hits from most opponents. It's the crits that get you.
CapnZapp
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:05 pm

Of course crit negation is your first priority.

That said, a -20 penalty can halve your chance at succeeding on the Test. And the best chance of avoiding death and defeat is to win your Tests. Throwing that away just because there's a 10% risk of a critical in the RAW is and feels very dodgy indeed.

But let's not focus overly on what amounts to a corner case "no armour but still a shield". All that accomplishes is drawing off our attention from the actual issues with the RAW.
Post Reply