Ok my team and I are about 9*3 hour sessions in and I am finding the action cards totally useless.

Most of the actions are handled fine with the "Perform a stunt" card. There are minute differences but not enough most of the time to justify wasting an ugrade on a card.

I might be missing something but is anyone else finding this? Most of my team seems to be finding them sort of pointless and are irritated we have to buy one per career. It seems like a waste of XP.

If you see something I have totally missed please help me see the error of my ways.

Honestly most of the talent cards are about as disappointing.

Maybe you're being to flexible with Perform a Stunt?

I'm not sure what I do differently but my players love buying action cards. They try to get a variety for different occasions and that make use of different skills/attributes.

I took out of my games all the talents who add a white dice (specialize if you want them), and all the talent who add success with banes. In the same way, I took out of my game the assist manoeuvre (no free white dice for others players).

About actions cards, combat cards are more effective than basic combat, melee or range.

So you probably talk about support card... which are :

• Specialized traits to some characters (ancestors, ritual dancer, way of the sword, pets...) : you can't do such things without these cards.
• Support trait = help other character to do more stuffs, earn bonuses... : you may help your team a lot of ways. Without these cards, it's a white assist dice with a manoeuvre (erased in my houserule as said before)
• No trait or Ongoing = put your character in a long term effect (berserk, etc) : you can't have such effect without these cards.
• Social trait = that's a bit challenging because you already have Roleplay + skills rolls to influence, lie, seduce, etc... In my game I often use the progress tracker to convince someone, in example, with a number of steps equal to the NPC's WP. While you may earn only 1 step without cards, you gain more steps with them. That is how I see it. Outside of rolls and trackers, a character with a social action card is considered as an expert at what the card does... So my NPCs react to that single possession of a card.

I think you may have been a bit excessive in your point, but I understand that this new way of ruling RPG might be disappointing.

I agree that the combat cards are slightly better but once you have the one or maybe two that work with your character there is little reason to keep buying them, yet your are forced.

As for the social situation cards those are tough to use. Should a player without a social card be totally unable to engage in social situations and then how long till they can engage again. We have been using the "perform a stunt" for most actions. Honestly it would make more sense for the action cards to add additional things to spend successes and boons. Most of them seem so specialized its hard to use.

I like your suggestion for social tracking and there is certainly something to it.

willmanx said:

We totally haven't had that "problem". The Action cards are very much liked by my group and a primary means of character differentiation.

In fact, given our play experience, I can't even imagine using "perform a stunt" for most things...it is intended as a catch all nothing else applies type of thing.

Maybe you are being too lenient in your interpretation of "perform a stunt" and making it's success ratio too high thus making more specialized options which should be better unattractive. In other words, if you are marginalizing Action cards by allowing Perform a Stunt to be as good with no investment required, then you probably aren't using the Actions as intended.

I mean, sure, technically all the Action cards do anyway is make it easier on the GM / Players to construct appropriate dice pools and interpret the results without having to wing it or rely on totally generic options, and thus to a certain extent they are optional. But generally speaking the "Perform a Stunt" version of something and a concrete Action that someone committed character resources to having should not be equivalent even if you allow a PaS based attempt in the first place. It should always be easier and more advantageous to use a paid for specific Action than a free wildcard proxy with the same or very similar effect.

Bibbles said:

My players rarely have an action they can use in every combat situation ... sometimes the don't have the correct weapon, sometimes the circumstances makes using a certain action/weapon too difficult. Sometimes they need to engage at range. Perform a stunt only comes in play when they have no other options, partly because the results are much more difficult than the action cards, and usually not as impressive without the bonuses for boon and comets.

Its even more pronounced in social situations ... perform a stunt will rarely work on an NPC when it comes to changing their mind, where the action cards make it clear when it does.

I don't understand. You let anyone do a full version of Counterstroke or Twin Pistols or High King Gotrek's Justice or Big City Bravado or Find Weakness with Perform a Stunt?

How does Find Weakness work then, since it has ongoing effect while it's recharging? Do you put recharge tokens on Perform a Stunt?

Maybe perform a stunt requires a black die and a "can't reproduce another card" house rule.

jh

Emirikol said:

It says explicit on perform a stunt, that what you attempt can't be covered by another action card.

Espcially with social actions, you have to be very strict in either imposing large penalties for attempting without action card, or not allow it. Because otherwise people will just invest in guile/charm/intimidation, and be fully covered.

Yeah that IS a little surprising. There are actions that have very long recharge times during which you get things like free maneuvers, bonus stats or other tangible effects. Also, some combat actions do MASSIVE damage effects compared to regular Melee Strike.

Something is amiss here...

Perhaps the problem is the balance between "min/max-ers" and roleplaying. It's an old problem, one that has been written about many many times.

When I say "min/max-er", I mean that the player's primary interests is looking to maximize their benefits while minimizing their risks (i.e. min/maxing) - and they will attempt to do this using the mechanics at hand. For example, the old Double Strike action card was ridiculously strong compared to the other actions, and any min/max-er worth his salt would take this action without thinking. The game rules allow players to do this.

However, should every character be equipped with Double Strike? The Min/Maxer would argue the answer is clearly, yes. However, finding the best character build isn't the point to playing WHFRP. (if you think it is, perhaps some other game would be better?)

Getting back to your original question about Action Cards percieved worthlessness - you and your players are reading the stat-lines like min/max-ers and not thinking about the theme behind a character. It's ok to read the stat-lines (in fact, you should), but consider taking actions because of the way the shape your character. "Honeyed Words" isn't crap if it's taken by a character who wants to excel in flattery and likes to be socially mobile. "Winning Smile" isn't crap if it's taken by a player whose character displays charismatic magnetism to give his opponents pause.

Similarly talents should work the same way. "I know a guy..." or "I'll sleep when I'm dead" should trigger some kind of RP desire in a player to explain why he used to know a guy that gave him knowledge about a certain situation - or why his grim look at life gives him renewed vigour to face the challenges ahead.

It's an unfortunate side-effect that the components might increase the desire to "min/max" - but they are, as many of us have said, tools for roleplaying, and should be viewed as such.

Sub-optimal choices are OK in roleplaying. Really, they are.

I would have to agree with others. Perform a Stunt's results and effects lines aren't nearly as powerful as an actual action card. In addition, Perform a Stunt should be used to perform actions that don't have an appropriate action card. I can see allowing it to occasionally be used for something that does have a card in an extreme condition.

However, it should not replicate Double Strike consistently, say, for a PC that wants to have a dual wield attack action. If they want to have a dual wield attack action, then they'll have to purchase the dual wield attack action cards.

So,

1) the results of Perform a Stunt are much meeker than a similar action card

2) Perform a Stunt should not be used to replicate an action covered by an action card

Combined, this means that Perform a Stunt is good for handling unusual cases, but to "min-max" or be effective you'd need to utilize the more specialized action cards.

dvang said:

I agree fully to this. I just want to add that not only is the specialized actions better for "min-max" it's also better for roleplaying purposes it's , as they give more flavour and character to the characters.

I've never experienced this problem in my gaming group, and I can't see it happening. My players generally want more action cards than they are allowed to take on their careers, rather than beeing annoyed that they "have to" spend xp on them.

dvang said:

I agree here. I think anything that would be reasonably possible for anyone to attempt, even if covered by an action card, could be done with Perform a Stunt, though.

To take Double Strike as an example, everyone and anyone can swing both weapons at once. Double Strike allows you to do so with trained efficiency. So, for instance, I might allow a play to use PaS to Double Strike, but I would remove the effects of any boons, and magnify the effects of banes/stars. You might succeed and deal weapon damage + strength + weapon damage to the target, but you rolled a Chaos Star; as you attempt to recover from your reckless assault, the Gor manages to strike your weapon in the off-hand and sends it flying into the swirl of melee. Those three Boons you rolled? A flower blooms on your home farm in Ostland, bringing joy to the local children before it is trampled mercilessly by a cow. Just as your spirit shall be.

Maybe that was a bit maniacal.

I'm new to the rules (only got the core set last week), but as has already been pointed out, the card explicitly states that it can not be used as a substitute for an existing action card. It seems to me that in effect it is your house rule that is unbalancing.

I don't allow perform a stunt to mimic other action cards. It's comparable to the cantrip of the mage. If a player wants to inflict damage on someone he has to use an action card and perform a stunt can't be used. It's used for things that aren't covered by other action cards and special actions the players want to do, like shooting a rope. We don't really use it much, but generally it's mostly used for things done as manoeuvers in our game.

Gallows said:

In the case of Cantrips, though, it doesn't allow you to do things covered by other cards because you haven't yet learned how to manipulate the winds of magic to the extent necessary to perform that action at all; you don't know how to create a fireball, so you can't.

However, if I give my 4 year-old two sticks and tell her to swing both of them at once, she can do it. Not nearly as effectively as someone trained in two-weapon fighting, but it can be done.

In that case, I'd say it's perfectly fine to allow the PaS card to cover what is physically possible for anyone, even if it is similar to an action card, simply water the results down to the point that it probably offered no advantage. In my example before, I was probably too generous in the damage output of PaS in that situation... I'd probably make it deal damage similar to what a standard melee strike would do, but with greater drawbacks.

I understand the rules say it can't mimic an existing card, but to tell someone they can't physically perform an action that is doable by anyone with control of their limbs seems a bit extensive.

Darrett said:

They can do it, but they just use the basic melee attack. There won't be a mechanical advantage, but of course they are allowed to use two weapons. If they want to be more effective than when using a single weapon though they need to take the card.

Then take the example of Grappling, which we covered before. That would be specifically disallowed under the RAW. If I want to tackle a fleeing opponent, my limbs won't respond until I train with a wrestling instructor.

I think simply using the standard melee attack card doesn't represent the inherent dangers in doing something for which you aren't trained. Attacking with two weapons isn't at all the same as attacking with one, and should present different obstacles and even opportunities for anyone attempting it.

The rules aren't really intended to be strictly adhered to regardless of what makes sense and makes for a better story. If a player asks you to do something that is covered by a card, but there is absolutely no logical reason that a human with all their limbs would be able to perform the task, would you deny them the ability to do it? This is exactly why the Power of Yes should be employed. Don't replicate the card, but allowing a watered down effect with drawbacks to occur is fully within the spirit of the game.

Darrett said:

Attacking with 2 weapons certainly isn't the same as attacking with one, and someone who is trained in two-weapon combat (ie has the correct actions cards) will certainly gain opportunities for doing so.

For someone who doesn't have the right action cards then attacking with 2 weapons can simply be covered with the Basic Attack action. I'd add a penalty, probably a misfortune dice, because the attacker is actually making his life harder by trying to use a fighting style he isn't used to.

I'm glad you guys brought this up, because I'm certain it will happen in the future.

Here's how I'd rule the two weapon fighting:

You can hold and swing two weapons, but you simply can't mount an effective attack, beyond a basic melee EFFECT. So you hit with your spear and your axe..so what? You still did the same damage and you didn't get "two chances to hit" like a person that's specialized in that.

jh

I value every situation, when players use Stunt. Is the player trying to avoid buying the apropriate action, or is he really trying to "perform a stun".

When you "perform a stunt" more than once, it stops being a "stunt" and becomes an action, and those you have to purchase.

So while I might allow a player to use two weapons in one fight, and give him penalties for doing so (and of course reward him with white dice, if it's good roleplaying), I would not allow him to do so again, unless he bought the action.

If your characters are not buying 2+ actions each rank, you're allowing them to use Perform Stunt to often, and with to few penalties.

You actually don't need them at all, over the basic attack cards (as it allows you to scale damage). You can also use a variant we used for a long time which was each success after the first deals +1 damage. It works fine.

Boons/Banes trigger criticals, conditions, or any other effect.

Action cards are simply there to facilitate the system in defining what is an action or maneuver and help create/mitigate damage. They can help boost rolls for social actions, but that's not all that necessary either.

If your group is unhappy with them, cut them. Some cards, like whose next and My Life For Yours are awesome, but the system can account for the rest. The only thing you might have to add is that multiple boons can trigger criticals more than once. Or if a player is crafty and gives a good description, give him criticals on Boons (or if it helps your story).

Really the system does not break down without them at all. They are a tool, like anything in WFRP. Throw away what you don't like. Oh, and the spell cards are good.

I'm honestly surprised at how many people are so dismissive of the Action Cards. To my players and I, it was one of the major selling points of this system.

Oh well to each their own.