Warhammer D&d Conversion
Is it possible to use this game to replace D&D as an RPG-lite? But you may want to try the new Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (3rd Edition). I don't think 'conversion' makes much sense-Descent heroes just don't have. Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay is a role-playing game system with multiple source books set within the Warhammer 40,000 universe. The first game using the system, Dark Heresy, was created by Black Industries, which closed soon after the initial release.
Fewer Magical Weapons and Abilities. (Take a check to run up raindrops, anyone?)2. Established, gritty, believable world. This is more in reference to Forgotten Realms than anything, but the happiness of the setting just puts me off.3.
Wide variety of careers, and the ability to effectively multiclass.4. No resurrection. 'Uh oh, Regram the Fighter just died again. Cleric, let's get that revolving door to death spinning.'
Warhammer Orcs D&D Orcs. Same goes for Chaos, Skaven, Beastmen, Ogres. Just about any comparison you care to make.
Actual enemies instead of MMORPG enemies, standing around waiting for you to kill them for Experience Points. Here are my reasons but in no specific order:. None of the playable races are monsters that feel out of place (Player's Handbook 3 adds minotaur to the list of playable races). If you play a monster in WFRP 2nd edition they are cool quirky and feel like they fit in the setting (Skaven from Children of the Horned Rat, chaos mutants from Tome of Corruption).
In D&D hit points can be scaled so high it feels unrealistic (you can have 100+ HP at higher levels) and a mid-end D&D character can survive things that would mortally wound or kill almost anyone (A fireball hit to the face, a dozen sword blows etc.). While wounds are scaled in a realistic fashion and it is impossible to amass more 20 or so. Even a high end WFRP can still be killed easily by things that would barely scratch a D&D character.
In D&D wizards are people that read books and are able to blast people with 3 or 4 fireballs and then they go home because they are out of spells. If the wizard is in 4th edition D&D they are nothing more then combat spell-casters who mainly have spells that are useful in battle and no where else (Even a bright wizard has more utility spells then these guys). While WFRP wizards are feared and persecuted and sometimes even hunted down. If a WFRP wizard messes up his spells then bad stuff is going to happen. D&D clerics have share most of the same types of spells if the god they worship similar (D&D 3.5) or they have the same list of spells regardless of whether they are worshiping the godess of death or the god of the sun.
WFRP priests have completely different spells for each god. In WFRP there is tension between the different cults (Sigmar and Ulric) and even some of the most faithful priests can be tempted by the dark gods.
In D&D the main reason the PCs fight evil if for loot and XP (not always the case and I don't have too much against an old fashion dungeon crawl if it is done right). In WFRP the PCs fight to survive but some fight out of loyalty to a cause (Kill Orcs for Sigmar!) or for a interesting realistic goal (love, revenge, desire, political power etc.).
I know not all WFRP groups play that way but the main difference being that WFRP characters do not get 100 XP and a pile of gold for killing a goblin in the woods. I have no experience with D&D 4th edition, as that game didn't appeal to me at all, so all of this is in comparison to 3.5:1) D&D, at high levels, isn't a medieval fantasy game.
It's a superhero game which resembles modern SWAT tactics more than anything remotely resembling fantasy. High level characters simply need to scry the big bad guy they're after, teleport to him, and start hurling spells until it's dead. A reasonably equipped high level character can destroy an average army of a few thousand with minimal effort, especially if it's a magic/divine class.
Expecting high level characters to undergo any sort of struggling journey to achieve an objective is an excercise in futility. I strongly disagree with the lack of utility spells - high level caster characters are esentially deities with what they can pull off with some creativity. I don't even see the point of having a non caster character at high level. A single summoned creature from a caster is far more effective than a level 20 fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger.
Not to mention a caster at this point could destroy one of those classes even in melee combat - yes, even a wizard.2) D&D is a miniatures game more than a roleplaying game. Even with a DM focused on exploring other areas of gameplay, the level of overwhelming detail given to combat quickly reduces the game into a tactical strategy game as soon as swords are drawn. I prefer a simpler, more narrative system, where the focus is on the ongoing story rather than the banal turn-by-turn breakdown of a fight. I've seen entire sessions of anything D20 reduced to nothing but combat, regardless of the intents of the DM.3) The D20. There is no more random system than this, especially for skill checks (anything non combat). Especially at lower levels, the margin of luck that the D20 introduces makes character abilities irrelevant. At higher levels, see point 1.4) Given that characters skyrocket in progress from inept bumbling fools who struggle to take down a few orcs to demi-gods who can raze cities, I can't really come up with a setting that makes sense.
It's entirely divorced from reality. Some of the D&D settings, by themselves, aren't bad at all. I can't fault that. They just can't exist as written within the confines of the system without some major suspension of disbelief. What's stopping dragons and other high level mosters from just decimating the majority of civilization? By the time high level heroes caught news of what was happening, half of a country could be wiped out in a matter of hours.
And once defeated, the monsters could just ressurect each other to wipe out the other half later. Why are farmers needed when a single caster can forever solve the problem of famine by creating a permanent spell that summons cattle in a slaughterhouse? Why wouldn't this caster do the same in a desert, opening up a gate to a plane of water and turning the once barren land green in months? The very existence of high level magic should have turned the world into something more akin to a high futuristic society.
Unless the monsters have destroyed everything.5) Players are encouraged, by the nature of the system, to make stab blocs rather than characters. If I want to play a somewhat social barbarian, for example, I'm left with a few choices. I can gimp my character to do this through multi-classing, or I can just stay the course and have a set of stats optimized for combat but having little resembelance to how I envision the character. It's a very crunchy but inflexible system where players are encouraged to pigeon hole their statistics with little regard for non mechanical considerations. Again, I can roleplay whatever I want, but the mechanics are again divorced from the reality of the setting.
It's hasn't got a DM's guide (I am referring to the 3.5 edition which I own) that is absolutely stuffed full of random dungeon architecture and treasure tables that no sane gamesmaster will ever use. Let's face it; a method of creating a monster-filled and trap-strewn underground labyrinth that is governed by no sense of logic whatsoever is just lame. Does anyone ever use this technique any more?
Here's what I do when I want to plan out a cave system where goblins (or whatever) live: I take a pen, and however many sheets of A4 paper I think I'm going to need, and then I draw it out. Usually takes about an hour or so depending on how big and intricate a cave system it's going to be and how much detail I'm going to add to my little sketch (I might put in some barrels or a broken cart and dead horse or something). Then I choose where the goblins (or whatever) are going to be, how many of them there may be and where they might have put their little goblin traps.
It's really that easy and makes a large section of the DM's guide completely redundant.Having said that, I like DnD because. Well it's DnD isn't it. Generic fantasy fun where hobbits and half-orcs can hang out down the pub together and killing 1,000 kobolds will just about get you to level 2.
I have not run the 3rd yet, but:. Warhammer Characters actually get to use their abilities numbers. They are not just there for the bonuses. Warhammer does not rely solely on levels.
The adventures can be easily modified and the writers do not pigeon hole the characters to their levels (starting off in the dungeons, etc.). has actually come a long way since it was first created.
Despite it's flaws, 2ed is still a better game than D&D (although, I do like D&D's skill challanges, but that could be easily adapted to any game). has more freebies and does not require it's players to buy into a subscription to get good support and free adventures, etc. gives the characters story reasons for their advancement.Don't get me wrong, the new D&D is a pretty good game, but it still needed a lot done to it (I am being kind). I thought Dragon Age was good, but that world seems suspiciously like Warhammer. RE Vlad:I used the treasure tables quite a bit:shobon: Mostly because I couldn't be bothered to continually juggle with what was appropriate for the party level while pouring over hundreds of pages of magic items and gear. It was almost essential to use them to maintain balance by giving a wide range of items for all classes while ensuring that loot isn't overly useless or specifically geared to the party (making them stronger than they should be). They actually balanced level appropriate monsters with the average results of the loot tables in mind.
But outside of that table, yeah, I didn't use any of those worthless random dungeon charts.But that does bring up another negative: the system was too gear dependent and magic items not only too common, but game balance depended on it; magic items appropriate to the level were a huge contributor to the effectiveness of a characcter, almost equal to level, feats and so on. It's much easier in WHFRP to just use common sense rather than midlessly roll loot for every encounter. I just took the effort to make a master chart of loot in a dungeon and scatter stuff where it's appropriate or believable (a few scrolls in a goblin den might be found on a dead adventurer rather than in the pocket of an illiterate bubgear). I prefer a system where artifacts are important and treasured rather than routine and necessary tools of the trade for purposes of a coherent story. But again, D&D is more of a tactical miniatures system. RE Vlad:I used the treasure tables quite a bit:shobon: Mostly because I couldn't be bothered to continually juggle with what was appropriate for the party level while pouring over hundreds of pages of magic items and gear. It was almost essential to use them to maintain balance by giving a wide range of items for all classes while ensuring that loot isn't overly useless or specifically geared to the party (making them stronger than they should be).
They actually balanced level appropriate monsters with the average results of the loot tables in mind. But outside of that table, yeah, I didn't use any of those worthless random dungeon charts.But that does bring up another negative: the system was too gear dependent and magic items not only too common, but game balance depended on it; magic items appropriate to the level were a huge contributor to the effectiveness of a characcter, almost equal to level, feats and so on. It's much easier in WHFRP to just use common sense rather than midlessly roll loot for every encounter. I just took the effort to make a master chart of loot in a dungeon and scatter stuff where it's appropriate or believable (a few scrolls in a goblin den might be found on a dead adventurer rather than in the pocket of an illiterate bubgear). I prefer a system where artifacts are important and treasured rather than routine and necessary tools of the trade for purposes of a coherent story. But again, D&D is more of a tactical miniatures system.I have never thought random tables were a bad thing. In fact that was one of the things that got me into WFRP.
I liked the career tables and random roll characteristics of 2nd edition. When 3rd edition came out I liked how they preserved some of the randomness in cards and new dice system. As for loot tables I could do without them as loot isn't too much of an issue in my WFRP campaigns.
Warhammer Fantasy D&d
I guess as long as a loot table makes even a little bit of sense I wouldn't mind it. To be perfectly honest, I get a bit tired of words like 'gritty' and 'dark' being tossed around all too much. I too love the 'dark', oppressive setting of Warhammer (though not when it gets too cynical or nihilistic, which I don't like at all. Personal preferences, of course).
But anyway, I enjoy the grim atmosphere and yet there is something that irks me when people say one thing is better than another because it is darker or grittier. Or especially 'edgier'. I really hate that word, 'edgy'. I guess it feels too 'corporate executive trying to figure out what appeals to kids these days' to me. And I'm perfectly fine with happy superheroic high fantasy settings as well as dark and moody stuff. I'm rambling. But my point is: I like D&D, I like Warhammer and I don't really prefer either.
It just depends on what mood I'm in.But more to the point: as Warhammer 3's.improvements. over D&D (by which I mean things that I think are.better., not just 'different and equally fun'), I'd name the following:= dice system (math-free, flexible, versatile and nearly always limited to one roll)= less rules-lawyering possible because the rules are flexible by design= party mechanics= stance system= initiative systemI like the progress tracker at times, dislike it at others.
I like the lack of minis but prefer to play with them at others. I can see the value of the Acts & Episodes structure but sometimes it annoys me as well. There are places where I prefer D&D and places where I prefer WFRP. So that's my two cents:).
In D&D, fighters can be kinda useful if you polymorph them. Rangers especially, because then you can polymorph both them and their pet. A barbarian worked well as a dinosaur. Still less effective than a wizard, druid or cleric in melee (yet alone what they can summon), but it's a start!Honestly, I really don't mind the settings for D&D, and have nothing to complain about on that end.
I thought Forgotten Realms was well done, as was Dark Sun, Planescape and Eberron. It's not the settings I dislike. It's the system, and how it often fails to incorporate with those settings.
Call the fire department because this thread is overflowing with straw men and they are all ablaze!What is interesting is watching the same people who bristle when they hear 'Warhammer 3ed is a board game' comment jump on the 'D&D 4ed is a MMORPG' meme, especially since both editions moved their properties in very similar directions.To me it's like arguing that pizza is better than ice cream. Does liking one mean you have to hate another?
Each has it's strengths and weaknesses, are appropriate at different times, and both are enjoyable. Call the fire department because this thread is overflowing with straw men and they are all ablaze!What is interesting is watching the same people who bristle when they hear 'Warhammer 3ed is a board game' comment jump on the 'D&D 4ed is a MMORPG' meme, especially since both editions moved their properties in very similar directions.To me it's like arguing that pizza is better than ice cream. Does liking one mean you have to hate another? Each has it's strengths and weaknesses, are appropriate at different times, and both are enjoyable.I don't think many people say they -hate- D&D. I like it, I just prefer Warhammer, for many of the reasons stated.I find Warhammer to be a bit more serious, and more believable, as well as being a bit less prone to the min/max game.D&D is a lot less work to DM though, which I enjoy.
Call the fire department because this thread is overflowing with straw men and they are all ablaze!Arguing about roleplaying games is serious business, especially when the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man enters the pictureGiven the nature of RPGs, it's not so much a formal debate as it is opinions shaped by personal experience and taste. Much like how someone will prefer one brand of soda over another on entirely subjective criteria. My own experiences with D20 have turned me off the system, just as I've been turned off GURPS and for many of the same reasons (although the dislike was far more extreme for GURPS).I've never really seen how D&D 4th ed is like an MMO to be honest, so I really don't get that catchphrase. There isn't really any grinding or raiding involved in it from what I've experienced, and it didn't really give me the same vibe at all. MMOs usually feature linear quests which can be repeated, etc., which isn't exactly part of the whole pen and paper experience.
I've never gone out of my way to kill a boar to finish up a level in D&D, although I'm sure somebody somewhere has. I guess you could loosely draw the same comparison with any RPG with classes, class dependent abilities, and XP vOvSame goes with the min maxing complaint. A player can min/max almost any system they want, including Warhammer. From a mechanics point of view, some classes in Warhammer are generally seen as a more powerful choice than others, same as in D&D. The difference I suppose is that the power level plateaus at a much more down to earth level than in D&D, and combat remains a riskier affair with a lack of resurrection etc.
But that's all relative to the game. Unfortunately I can't comment on which of the two is better because my only Roleplay Experience is D&D 4th edition so far and I have been enjoying it immensely.Why I am so intrigued by WFRP though is the setting, the down to earth grittiness it has, and I'm not a big fan of the divinity levels you can reach in D&D.Also, WFRP appears to be more focused on intrigue instead of combat.Last few sessions of D&D has been all combat and I think this because the game is more like a tactical miniature game included with the Roleplay stuff. All the combat just made me miss the venturing into town harassing NPCs with questions part.
I like to run large scale battles occasionally in my Dungeons and Dragons campaign, but I've yet to find a satisfactory method to portray them in. I've tried Heroes of Battle, and found it annoying to run and unable to portray the 'PCs as Strategists' idea. I tried the Minatures handbook mass battle rules. I found them clunky, restrictive, and unrealistic. Now, I've decided to try something else: Warhammer 40K rules.First, the reasons why it's 40K over fantasy:1.
Warhammer 40k D&d Conversion
I don't know fantasy.2. I feel Dungeons and Dragons combat, especially in high-magic worlds, is more similar to modern or futuristic warfare than traditional medieval warfare. Troops marching rank and file are just asking for a fireball or ice storm. Because there are many powerful weapons, troops would be better off in small, loose squads.
40K also allows for powerful characters and monsters that are the equal of entire squads, which is an important part of DnD.I'm not going to go into the rules of Warhammer 40K here, so don't ask.The scales are all pretty arbitrary right now, and I'm definately open to suggestions, as long as you have some logic behind them.Converting Dungeons and Dragons Statistics to Warhammer StatisticsWoundsWounds are a function of HP. The scale is as follows:1-25 HP = 1 wound26-50 HP = 2 wounds51-100 HP = 3 wounds101-200 HP = 4 wounds201+ HP = 5 woundsToughnessToughness is determined through a combination of average hit dice size and size category.
A couple of issues:Your 'penetration' system harks back to old 40k editions (and still exists in Fantasy). However, it's usually written as a Save Modifier (-1, -2, -3, -4 etc.)Small creatures need a base Strength in 40k terms of 2- look at Ratlings or Gretchin, for example.Spells: The scale in 40k is dodgy, I'd say around 1 inch to 2 squares. Act accordingly for spell effects. If it's a major spell, use the D&D rules to adjudicate its effects- for example, if you used a Disintegrate, the target gets the same sort of save they would in D&D, though if they take damage it's treated as a hit in 40k. You may also want to have some hits doing d6 wounds, to represet death by massive damage. I didn't know that penetration was a real stat once, but I think I'll keep it as penetration, just because I prefer using positive numbers.You're right about small creatures, I forgot that there are some with 2 strength.
I think I'm going to change the scale a bit so it's easier to get str 3. I don't want to end up with all those halfling rogues that rely on sneak attack for damage to always have strength 2.For distances, I've been using the scale of 1 inch to 1 square, because 6 inches then = 30ft, the average speed of most creatures. However, for ranged weapons it's been closer to 1 inch = 2 squares, otherwise a heavy crossbow would have a range of 60'. I've been toying with whether to make heavily armoured and small creatures move less inches, but I think it might unbalance things a bit, so I've so far left it out.
Also, I've been thinking of using leadership for saves, but it might be better to just use real DnD saves. The thing is, in DnD you get through armour by having a high attack bonus, not doing lots of damage. The rogue in my party has BAB +6 and +15 to hit, but he has a strength score of 8.
He should still be able to get through armour, but if I based it only off of strenght score, he wouldn't.Warhammer, however, operates more like using an 'Armor as DR' variant rule. Bypassing armor with skill would be something more like a Rending weapon, which ignores armor if you roll a 6 to hit.
Or maybe a special ability along the lines of 'Compare the character's WS to the figure he is attacking. If the character's WS is higher, subtract the difference from the victim's armor rating.' Warhammer, however, operates more like using an 'Armor as DR' variant rule. Bypassing armor with skill would be something more like a Rending weapon, which ignores armor if you roll a 6 to hit. Or maybe a special ability along the lines of 'Compare the character's WS to the figure he is attacking. If the character's WS is higher, subtract the difference from the victim's armor rating.'
I agree that warhammer normally operates on an 'armour as DR' basis, but that's not how DnD works, and I'm more interested in making this compatable and balanced with DnD stuff than with warhammer stuff. It's not intended to be balanced with real warhammer 40K units, just with itself. Using rending to represent bypassing armour presents two problems: first, how do you determine who qualifies and who doesn't?
Second, rending has no scale- you either have it or you don't, and you either roll a six, or you don't. DnD isn't that clear cut. Comparing the WS's means that having a high base attack bonus makes people less able to get through your armour, which makes no sense.