Gearing up to demo a game, so forgive the rapid fire questions.

I can't see any penalty for agility checks when you are wearing heavy armor, are there any? Full plate rogues performing stealth and backstabs anyone?

I know the GM is supposed to work in [P] to address items like this, but this is getting out of hand. The basic mechanics of this game are non-existant, or at least not explained well at all. I have gone from raging fanboy to not seeing any downside in throwing the rulebook out the window and just using the cards and dice system.

Am I the only one who gets frustrated when a player pulls an Enigma Insanity and asks if it applies (hmmm that's on page...let me see...ermm), or when someone asks what Ongoing on their action card means? So much potential...such poor execution.

*Throws rulebook out the window*

Whammo

Why would you prevent a rogue or anyone else from backstabbing, let alone backstabbing while wearing armor? If you know how to do it, and the fellow has his back to you, then regardless whether you're wearing armor you're going to be able to strike that vital area on his back. If the GM thinks it should be more difficult for someone to backstab (not why) while wearing armor, then they apply a <P>.
Honestly, I wouldn't penalize someone for using backstab while wearing armor. Trying to do it from stealth, sure ... but not the action itself. WFRP isn't D&D where you are restricted from doing things by 'class'. The *only* restriction like this is that wizards have a penalty to casting spells while wearing armor that has a Soak value. Wizards aren't prevented from wearing armor, but the armor interferes with the conduction of power.

Don't forget, non-rogues can acquire the Backstab action too.

Perhaps backstab is a bad example, I meant agility based tasks.

Let me phrase it differently. What is the advantage of wearing light armor over heavy in WFRP? I don't see any...

Perhaps I am to stuck in fantasy stereotypes, but I want to see advantages for wearing light armor to provide a little career diversity. Scouts and rogues shouldn't be in full plate, well in my opinion that is.

Whammo

Heavier armour results in Encumberance; not sure what else.

I am actually finding the rules-lightness of the system very refreshing. Thanks to this game, I've actually discovered I've grown tired of the systems that demand a rule for every instance and situation; whereas here I can arbitrate on what makes sense. Can someone wearing plate armour jump a 15 foot chasm? I'd say not bloody likely and tack on some Challenge <P> dice.

Yep, and they go over that very thing. Don't tell your players "no," just add a bunch of dice and say "still wanna give it a go?"

Capt Whammo said:

Heavy armour is hot, noisy and well... heavy. Enough reason for a scout or rogue to not waer it. By the way heavy armour is also very expensive.

Some interesting facts about plate armour, copied from wikipedia:

While it looks heavy, a full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds) if well made of tempered steel. This is less than the weight of modern combat gear of an infantry soldier (usually 25 to 35 kg), and the weight is more evenly distributed. The weight was so well spread over the body that a fit man could run, or jump into his saddle. Modern re-enactment activity has proven it is even possible to swim in armour, though it is difficult. It is possible for a fit and trained man in armour to run after and catch an unarmoured archer, as witnessed in re-enactment combat. The notion that it was necessary to lift a fully armed knight onto his horse with the help of pulleys is a myth originating in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. (And, in fact, the mere existence of plate armour during King Arthur era is a myth as well: 6th century knights would have worn chainmail instead.) Even knights in enormously heavy jousting armour were not winched onto their horses. This type of "sporting" armour was meant only for ceremonial lancing matches and its design was deliberately made extremely thick to protect the wearer from severe accidents, such as the one which caused the death of King Henry II of France.

HedgeWizard said:

Agreed.

Capt Whammo said:

I'm with you buddy, I cancelled my pre-order on amazon when I found it in a local store and paid full price right there. And the rules are poorly organized, full of holes and almost an after-thought. I feel a tad ripped-off.

If anyone disagrees with me, you can make me eat my words by telling me what the base difficulty of a channeling check is. I can't find it anywhere. Most combat actions roll one <p>, but this isn't an attack which leads me to believe that it should use the average 2 <p> difficulty, but then it adds a <p> from difficulty making it 3 <p> or 4<p> if you intend to cast a spell in the same round, which is what we were using on sunday night. But this basically made the wizard and the priest spend most of combat failing channeling/piety checks and pretty much coming to the conclusion that the setting is cool but the mechanics severly suck.

According to the rules, the base difficulty of an unopposed check is whatever the GM feels it should be.

Most people, due to the inherent difficulty of spells anyway, believe that the usual difficulty a GM should assign is Simple (0d), making most casts become a <P> and in line with melee/ranged attacks.

Gorehammer said:

I hadnt read it neither owned yt, but its semems that is a rules light game, and all the rules light games seems full of holes and almost after thought.

dvang said:

this seems like the best answer.

Why not: 1 <P> per point of Encumbrance the armour is over the strength of the fighter to any Agility based actions.

Full Plate is 8...average strength is 3 so that's...5 <P> (if you're even allowed to go that high)

That would also mean that shooting arrows in full plate would suck.

Encumbrance rules already give 1 per point you are over on all tests. Not as dangerous as <P>, but still can get pretty significant.

dvang said:

But those are generic rules to govern over your encumbrance level. Any PC that is going to wear full plate and expect to zero penalties to their Stealth is going to ensure that they fall short of their ecumbrance.

Ah I had misread your post and was thinking something different.

Sarim Rune said:

And it's not difficult to fall short of your encumbrance. The rules are very forgiving. A standard human (3 Strength) can wear full plate, use a tower shield and a hand weapon and only be over by 1 point (1 Misfortune on checks.)

And it's not difficult to fall short of your encumbrance. The rules are very forgiving. A standard human (3 Strength) can wear full plate, use a tower shield and a hand weapon and only be over by 1 point (1 Misfortune on checks.)

Keep in mind that they then can't carry a backpack, tinderbox, extra clothes, food, or anything else either without adding additional weight. So, as a GM, keep in mind *everything* that the PC is carrying, not just weapons and armor.