Hi ppl,

Last night was reading cards just for fun and some thing came to my mind like a bolt of lighting.And that is how rules handled action card traits.Am i right or by RAW evryone can take card that have traits like slayer,master of wind,ancestor etc?

IMo that is awfull rule...i mean how on earth is possible for thug to use master of wind or ancestor card or whatever...For example i red that you have months and months of training to become ironbreaker and to have possibility to use powers that their ancestors have....and then thug come,go through some combats and learn that action as well?!?!How?Knowledge fall from sky?I really dont get it...i know everyone can make his own house rules,but i thing Core rules should point out things like that in book tbh.

Only my 50 cents

per RAW, you can buy anything but Spells & Blessings (you need to be of the Order / Faith).

I houseruled it before we started to play for the reasons you mentionned (World setting, racial background, etc.)

Currently there aren't many 'fighting styles' available. While I can see a soldier learning how to fight in a 'style' and therefore emulate one of the ritual dance/way of the sword techniques by calling it something else. I know trollfeller strike isn't necessarly OP/broken in the hands of a non-slayer. But Saga's? Yea... I'm fresh out of ideas on that one.

We also play with Cwell's house rule, but there's rumor that the Khorne expansion due out in Jan is supposed to bring fighting styles for some of the more martial types.

Yea,we have those houseruled as well.Just wanted to point that out though,i think that should be in official rules as i see many ppl see it as a big mistake in those.

Leon

We didn't so much house rule it as no one took those cards instinctually, since they didn't make any sense for their character concepts.

I got the impression that there were implied restrictions:

"Ritual Dances" restricted to Wood Elves,

"Way of ..." restricted to Sword Masters

"Ancestors" restricted to Iron Breakers

and "Slayer" restricted to, well, the Slayer classes

That anyone could pick these up does seem rather odd.

Jack of Tears said:

It's not odd at all, the system trusts players/GMs to not act like munchkins. If you have players that try to optimise to the detriment of roleplaying you can easily houserule it. If having the action actually fits the background/roleplaying (subject to the discretion of the GM of course) of the player why should the rules stand in the way?

Cwell2101 said:
per RAW, you can buy anything but Spells & Blessings (you need to be of the Order / Faith).

I know that is how it works for Spells, but are you certain Blessings are limited in the same way? I may very well have missed it in the rules, just checking.

gruntl said:

I believe we had this up for discussion in another similar thread. The solution that seemed most elegant to me was this:

1: You have to have good explenation in your background for using those cards (lived with a dwarf who taught you their way of fighting, for example).

2: You get a Misfortune Dice when using these Actions because you can never learn them as well as the race/career they were developed for.

There, doesn't hamper roleplaying and discourages munchkins.

I think that at some later point there may be 'things' that refer to these traits and gives advantages to you if you qualify for those traits.

e.g if you're a slayer Troll feller strike will work better for you than if you're just a human soldier.

Just a thought

-L

gruntl said:

i can't find it right now. Only found in the Core book where they mention a limitation as an exemple for purchasing Action, p35

Some action cards may have special requirements – for example, only wizards can acquire new spells, and even then, the wizard can only acquire spells from his particular College of Magic.

I do think that it does apply to Priest Blessings & Faith (i would enforce it anyway).

In the priest book, it is clear that you need to be a Priest to be able to curry favor & invoke blessings, exactly like you need to be a Wizard to have power and cast spell.

Wizards & Priests Careers are separate from the rest and are kinda their own path (becoming a Wiz or Priest takes years of education & training)

Cwell2101 said:

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you could interpret the Faith rules differently (unless it is actually stated in the rules somewhere). The thing is that there are Blessings that do not require a Invocation check (while all Wizard spells, asfaik, do require a Spellcraft check). These Blessings are not the most powerful ones, but still. Examples of blessings useable without Invocation: Minor Blessing (no check at all), Penitent Zeal (Piety check, this one should really be available for Zealots, who actually even has the proper skill for it), Sigmar's Hammer (a WS (ST) test). The fact that a non-priest will have major problems with currying favor means that the blessings are useable less often than for the Priest.

This interpretation fits the lore quite well in my opinion. There's a lot of examples of Witch Hunters and Zealots that seem to be strengthened by their belief in Sigmar in Warhammer novels (e.g., the Witch Hunter series). But it's of course up to the GM.

I see what you mean.

I also have no objection to a Zealot, being a devout fanatic, getting rewarded with a blessing, if it serves the story or for exceptionnal accomplishment. It is just not the base, unless he was an Initiate before

Remember that the upper left corner of the card has an icon, which is an Action Trait : Sword = Melee Attack, Pistol = Range Attack, Book with Comet = Blessing, Flamme-Thingy = Spell, Flag = Support/Social

A few spells use another skill than Spellcraft : Form of the (Wolf/Raven/Bear), Nature Speach (Amber Order) use Nature Lore, Primal Claw and another (Amber Order) uses Weapon Skill, Amethyst Order has an Observation base Spell (Deathsight), Light Order Exorcism is a Discipline check, a Nature Lore for a Jade spell too, etc. Those are still Spells, from a specific College. Same as Blessings and Faiths.

Sigmar's Hammer is a Blessing of the Sigmar Faith. The text of it says it is also a Melee Attack (you swing it calling for Sigmar's Strength), allowing the use of certain things, like bonuses, or defence actions, etc. It is still a Blessing. Same as the Primal Claw (it's a Spell and a Melee Attack)

Curry Favor is a Support action but requires you to have successfully invoked a Blessing and to not have enough Favor to activate that Blessing (i read it as "successfully called for" a Blessing, whatever the skill check to make it happen is, like casting a spell). Only Priests get the Basic Blessing cards and Curry Favors.

I also think that Penitent Zeal has nothing to do with a Zealot, it's just a name for a Blessing.

The Wizards and Priest both have a separate book, with similar rules and mechanics (few differences like one gets mana before casting, the other casts before getting mana, etc).

I found what i was refering to, Tome of Blessings p.46 :

One of the more noticeable differences is that the initiate career sheet has a special type of socket called a Faith
socket , where one of the normal talent sockets would appear on a normal career. During character creation, an
initiate must choose which one of the eight gods of the Empire he has devoted his life to. Over the course of his
priestly careers, the character can only acquire and invoke blessings from his chosen deity .

Cwell2101 said:

Thanks for checking and finding it, saved me the trouble .

I guess Minor Blessing still up for grabs though (since it's not linked to a deity). Then again that card is not especially good in any case (but might fit with some character concepts I guess).

gruntl said:

I think any good GM leaves the possibility open for story and rp to help overcome certain obstacles in the game. If a character were portrayed as incredibly pious, and well role played, I could see a GM granting access to a single blessing - just as a human swordsman with a very good background and character concept might have or gain access to some of the "way of ..." talents. And if this were intended from the get go, awesome ... however, not all GMs running this system are going to have the kind of experience to understand what is or is not a good exception and for them there should be an entry in the GM's guide discussing this.

Minor Blessing is a Basic action and all priests get access to it (assuming they purchase the requisite skills), just like all wizards get access to the Petty magic spells because they are listed as Basic.

Traits are not restrictions. Keep in mind that the titles/names of the action card are for description/reference only. It is just a label for the effect. A Troll-feller Strike is in reality a powerful overhand blow designed to strike a single strong target, and not literally a strike that kills only Trolls and usable only by a Slayer (or what have you). There is nothing particularly Slayer-required for that type of attack, for example. "Ancestor" and "Way of" actions are the same. There really is nothing specific to IBs or Wardancers in their effects, as a normal mercenary could have learned an attack that has the same effects. A wardancer will "dance" more when performing their version of a "Way of" action than a Thug, but it's possible for a Thug to have learned an attack that uses their agility to have a similar effect.

Ah, but this is a roleplaying game, where descriptions actually mean something. If a Troll Feller strike is nothing more than an overhand blow anyone can learn, why not call it "overhand strike"? (though obviously it doesn't only kill Trolls, as it is a learned style, not a magical ability) The same with the dances ... if you can do them without dancing, why bother calling them dances?

I agree, if you want to give your characters more options and don't feel it important to create some racial uniqueness with talents, then it is an easy thing to rename something and give it to your Waywarden as a normal combat option. Me, I like the idea of Dwarves and Elves having access to training humans do not, as it helps to reinforce the idea that these are different cultures with their own traditions and ways of doing things.

That said, if a player came to me with a character concept of a warrior monk type who had trained in a remote school which emphasized purity of form over worldly possessions; or a zen warrior type who traveled from far Cathay and knew little of local customs but believed in the spirit and beauty of the sword; I might be convinced to give him access to the Way of the Sword or Dances abilities to reflect this. But these are unique circumstances, not something I would toss on the table for just anyone.

Because they are descriptive and interesting. "Troll-feller Strike" is much more evocative and FUN of a name than "powerful overhand strike". Otherwise, the traits would be requirements and not merely traits. Jay & Dan deliberately designed the action cards so that traits are not requirements, merely describers to allow for certain cards/rules to interact with those kinds of cards. <shrug>.

I agree with Jack of Tears on this one thouugh.

I understand traits arent same as requierements,but this is roleplaying game that use logic as well.How on earth you can describe thug using Saga of Grugni rofl?I mean thats thug...and this is something you learn of years...its something your masters teach you for so long,its more than just card,those things have something special what only special beings can do,they have spirit,that only specific ppl can feel.Same as way of sword.We can compare it with samurais for examples.They are learning only one strike for years.It would be same to have guy on street that know to use sword or somethin and over the night learned deepest samurai secrets and fighting styles.Its not just like that,and because i would NEVER give everyone to use those cards.

Oh, I can see your point. However, the way I look at it it's the effects that count and are really being considered. While my memory of the cards is a bit fuzzy atm, since this is a RPG is entirely plausible (IMHO) that pretty much anyone could have learned nearly any action that has a similar effect to any of the cards. If your thug chooses "Saga of Grungi", then feel free to change the name to something else more appropriate for a thug, since it is the effect that matters. Perhaps you want the PC to come up with a good story of how they learned the action, or how it works for them, since it is unusual? I wouldn't forbid the actions, though, since the traits aren't requirements nor restrictions.

dvang said:

Here is another issue, though. Why should everyone have access to the same stuff? Doesn't it do your story justice to give the different races and cultures access to things only they can do? This is an easy and yet very effective way of mechanically differentiating a Dwarf from a Human from an Elf. Soon people start getting this image of elves in their head as graceful warriors using exotic and mesmerizing combat disciplines; or Dwarves as staunch warriors with a strong respect for their ancestors. The powers themselves become a kind of short hand for the races that allow people to better visualize and connect with the characters at a glance. (And sure, you don't want all your PCs and NPCs to become stereotyped as X or Y, but characterization needn't end with these traits, merely keep them in mind.)

So any Career should buy any Action Card and Action Cards Traits don't make that Action Card Purchase impossible for some Careers ... correct? (except, of course, for Spells and Blessings)

So a Human Messenger (that really happened in my gaming group ) should buy " High Gotrek's Justice " Action Card..

Ok, but..

That makes some troubles.

For example: An Action Card [i can't remember Title name] with " Ancestor " trait gives a bonus [1 fortune dice, I can't remember exactly] againts anyone that wronged your Clan ( and against Greenskins). So if a Human Ratcatcher buys that Action Card, well, he should use that Card only against Greenskins, because he does not belong to any Clan.... right?

Another trouble: in a Party (for example) there are 1 Wood Elf Wardancer and 1 Human Student. The Human Student buys some " Ritual Dance " Action Cards (explaining that he was raised by Wardancers etc) and that makes Wardancer Player angry because he wanted buy that Cards too!

"For Sigmar's sake!" -Wardancer Player shouts- "I have more right than you to buy that Cards!!"

"Not at all" -replies Student Player- "I can buy any Card I want"

In the case of the Ratcatcher, you could define his clan as his "family" (immediate family and close friends) his adventuring party, or Ratcatchers in general. If the latter I would probably change Greenskin to Skaven to represent this different focus. (or I might do it anyway, since he is a "ratcatcher")

On the matter of dances and similar scenarios; if everyone takes a turn picking their cards then each person has an equal chance of getting skills they want and losing out on some others. Personally I would encourage the PC whose career is less appropriate to the skill to pick something else, but unless you make a rule stating that certain careers get first chance of refusal on certain card types, then all you can really do is hope the players will be good sports and work it out amongst themselves. Alternately you could let them both choose the same card and simply have them share it during the game; setting it between them and letting each lay their recharge markers off to the side as they activate it - this probably wouldn't be that difficult a situation to balance out.

Jack of Tears said:

It's too annoying (imho) sharing an Action Card.. main Action cards purpose is to make things smoothly: if Action Cards make anything more complex, well, it's a non-sense (imho)

On the matter of dances and similar scenarios it's surely true that each person has an equal chance of getting skills they want and losing out on some others, but... when that happens for Action cards suitable for anyone (such as " Reckless Cleave " or " Improved Dodge ") that brings no conflict among players, but when it happens for specific and 'cultural' Action Cards (such as Way of the Sword , Ritual Dance , Ancestor and so on) that makes players angry, even if other players (Student, Ratcatcher, Gambler, etc) have plentiful nice reasons to buy them (they were raised by..., they have learned them for that reason..., etc)!

In the case of the Ratcatcher, the Action Card that speaks about " Clan " is balanced for THAT specific purpose ("someone who wronged your Clan "): if you expand (or reduce) its field of application that Action Card could become UNbalanced (imho).

[OT] Just a clarification about house-rules or rules-changing: my gaming groupS are used to play games which don't need house-rules or rules-changing: they are not rule-lawyers, but they think that there is ALWAYS a good and reasonable cause to change rules, so you should change ANY rule, but that rule-changing often UNbalance the game!!

You've to playtest that rule-changing, often changing again, and that makes all so annoying (imho)... [end OT]

Then it is your job as GM to enforce your vision of things by saying "no, only X class or race has access to those cards". As GM part of your job is altering rules to make the game more enjoyable for both yourself and the players.

Sure, sharing cards might be a little bit of a pain, but what if there is simply nothing else player X wants but what player Y already has? You can always photo copy the card as another alternative.

And I'm not sure what your intention is with the Ratcatcher example. If you are allowing non dwarves to take the card, then "clan" may not mean anything - so your alternative is to either redefine clan for the character who took it or deny them that benefit of the card. The latter option makes the card weaker and is not much of a solution.