In Praise of Something Rotten in Kislev...

The WFRP first edition adventure Something Rotten in Kislev has not always had the warmest reception over the years. And most of the criticisms - inconsistency in tone, inconsistency with the existing setting, primarily - are entirely reasonable. I happen to think that the adventures themselves are quite interesting, if unevenly executed, but I wouldn't press this point too hard with someone who disagreed. But the grounds I wish to defend it on is: the rules as written don't really explain Zombie and Skeleton guards. There is a fairly wafty 'some areas may make certain creatures not subject to instability', but no mechanical implementation of this at all. So I give a certain amount of credit to Something Rotten in Kislev for making some nods in this direction, and more credit for actually writing about 'A Day in the Life of Necromancer' which is convincing to the extent that, given Necromancers, this is maybe the kind of thing that they would spend their time trying to do. I like different types of magic to be actually different, and to a wider extent than just the bad guys use skeletons and daemons, the good guys use nature spirits. 

 

Now, just like everything else in SRiK, the implementation is very uneven and it still doesn't add up to consistent and usable mechanics, but there are some reasonable ideas in there of how they might be done. Of course, SRiK then does some terrible things and one of the NPCs really undercuts some of the core ideas in the rules: for instance, the absolute maximum number of non-Petty Magic spells that can be learned is 40 (Intelligence divided by 10 multiplied by level) (or 50 if you are using Realms of Sorcery with its Level 5 wizards). A maxxed-out Giant Slayer (or any combat-optimized character really) that achieves surprise against any Wizard has a fair chance of doing some tremendous damage in a single round of attack against any humanoid character. It is hard to one-shot a character with 15 or 16 Wounds (And such characters should be very rare - , but given 3-4 attacks and decent Strength and Strike Mighty Blow, it isn't so hard to do in one round. The only defence really is to have sufficient magic items to make a character more-or-less invulnerable. And this is all a good thing: if no characters are practically invulnerable, then each character is forced to act with at least a due amount of caution. 

The above wasn't really a digression: it is more pointing out that things are better if everything is playing by the same rules. So, to circle back to the beginning, then having a supplement which attempts to explain something a little more about what is actually going on with the Undead.

Of the adventures, the first one was fine, although a little railroad-y: the scenario just isn't that hard, except for the bits which are forcing you to engage with the spirits, which are simultaneously flavourful yet pretty annoying. There is a decent combat encounter and a dungeon.  The second one is more challenging: it is almost, but not quite, a railroad as in it clearly wants the characters to do certain things, but it does sort of leave open the option to tackle it in anyway the players want, even though a lot of effort is expended in justifying the GM in saying no. But it does have lots of interesting role-playing opportunities: goblins and barbarians and undead and magic-users you can actually talk to. That said, the tone is weirdly awful and it encourages the GM to railroad and do massive info-dumps on the players and be in a fairly adversarial mode generally. I honestly think you can just use the set-up (which is great) and get on with it and ignore much of the GM advice and just let the players' roleplaying and preferences determine the shape of the adventure.

But what is given with one hand is taken away with the other. Having praised the book for tackling one set of rules vagueness, it is rather let down by the author making clear is his love of "unkillable plot
NPCs". I consider it a design failure in general and in WFRP particularly, especially when you have to break core rules to do  it. Nothing in WFRP 1e can know more than 40 (non-petty) spells, period, and you have to have the ingredients to hand; or you have to have the magic items to hand. There are actual statted enemies in this and other WFRP 1e campaigns which approach theoretical maxima. One of the refreshing things about WFRP 1e as written is that everything is playing the same game. There was just no reason to demolish that in SRiK. I especially hope it wasn't because someone couldn't be bothered to stat it out. Anyway, there is nothing to stop a GM from doing that to the two unkillables in SRiK. And since they will no longer have plot immunity, they can start treating the characters with a bit more respect, and thus make the negotiations and dialogue real.

The last adventure is really just a raid and a dungeon crawl. They are both pretty well-done with lots of fun details, but let down by one trap the ending, which goes for another 'unkillable NPC'. Again, I recommend ignoring this and just stat up the guy. The optimal solution for the adventure as written is to get not very far into the dungeon and then bug out,which rewards a very unusual kind of player. It isn't quite Tomb of Horrors levels of mucking players about (and with far less excuse, since the latter was a tournament one-shot) but it does have a whiff of that. I have read some comments which question the whole premise of the latter adventure, specifically that the PCs are under-powered for such an apparently important mission. I agree, so think you should make Bolgagrad just a less important place, so the whole thing is (a bit) less of a big deal from the Kislevian authorities' point of view.

 Reviews are fairly negative in terms of SRiK's place in The Enemy Within Campaign. It is hard to dispute this although I can't say it bothered me when I played it and later when I ran it: I am okay with the idea that the world is big and there is other stuff going on, which might have been related but wasn't. At the end of PBtT, there isn't much after all to spell out that there is going to be a cataclysm, especially if the PCs were successful in it. The first time you play it, rather than read it, then SRiK feels like it might be related - Chaos strikes abroad - and just because you don't uncover it, doesn't mean it wasn't there. It depends how much metagame your GM shares, I guess (or you read it yourself). But that said, you could definitely drop it from the campaign without any loss whatsoever. 

Anyway, there are a ton of good ideas in it which are fairly easily recoverable from the more annoying aspects (adversarial tone, unkillable NPC nonsense), so it is good fun to run and play. 

There is a great review here on Ill Met By Morrslieb. 

D&D-type Attributes

 In the course of doing something entirely different, I ended up mucking about with D&D's attribute system. It could be argued - and I would somewhat agree - that original D&D started out with a 'not bad at all' attribute system, although they didn't end up doing that much with it mechanically, at least to start with. 3d6 gives a nice distribution that should covers about 99% of a population very simply.

 

But there are a couple of issues I have with it. Firstly, the attributes they picked find it hard to distinguish between different types of physically competent characters. And secondly, the attributes aren't correlated but they aren't in reality entirely orthogonal to each other (I ended up here because I was looking at orthogonality and overlap in a different context).

 

The system I grew up with was MERP (so based on the Rolemaster system). In principle, this worked okay if you considered that the percentage-based attribute was the percentile of performance. Mechanically it didn't quite seem to work like that though, plus it was possible to get scores of over 100 in certain conditions (which would imply literally super-human performance; or that like D&Ds 18/51 or whatever, they would be differentiations in the top percentile. Given that all attributes had an independent racial modifier, it implied (in principle) that there was another undefined measure of performance. How to explain? A normal human has no modifier to any attribute except Strength, where they have +5. An Elf has a modifier of 0. So in some senses a human with '100' strength is stronger than an Elf with the same. But that 'percentile+bonus' was never defined, except that the percentile itself had a bonus, so in this case the Human would be '+30' and the Elf '+25'. But then in practice most characters will have strength of +5 or 0 without further differentiation, so what was the point of expressing it in percentile terms to begin with? However, in principle it could have worked great, if there were a key to what those levels would imply in terms of performance. They tended to mainly just get used as modifiers to skills though. Still, I might revisit the system one day, it does have some promise.

 

The next system I really learned was WFRP. And much as I love it, the attribute system was just worse than both D&D and MERP.  It was a percentage based system, but not a percentile - it is the percentage chance of passing a relevant attribute test i.e. a character with Strength 6 succeeds in an average Strength test about 60% of the time, a character with Strength 3 succeeds about  30% of the time. The percentage chance of succeeding in an attribute check just doesn't reflect how things  like this really work, nor was it easy to derive real-world outputs from the numbers. The only good things  about it were that it was more dynamic and tended to improve over time, and it was mechanically very easy in play. Very weirdly to me, some tables in D&D tend to replicate the badness, using the D&D attributes in a WFRP way and using them as the base number for a probability check.  

 

In any case, back to my D&D modifications. What I came up with was:

 

Latent Factors: 

P = Power (2d6) p1 + p2

F = Finesse (1d6) f1

L = Logic (1d6) l1

I = Intellect (1d6) i1

A = Affect (2d6) a1 + a2

W = Will (1d6) w1 

 

Visible Attributes:

Strength = P+1d6

Constitution = P+1d6

Agility = F+p1+1d6

Dexterity = F+2d6

Reasoning = L+I+1d6

Memory = I+W+1d6

Awareness = L+2d6

Intuition = 3d6 

Charisma = A+1d6

Empathy = A+W

Willpower = W+2d6 

 

This gives strong correlations between Strength and Constitution, and Charisma and Empathy; and mild correlations between Agility and Strength/Constitution; Agility and Dexterity; Reasoning and Memory. Clearly this still doesn't catch all the real world trade-offs, particularly at the very high and low levels, but it gives much more balance than in the original set. Without any great increase in complexity, it allows a wider range of characters to be described.

 

We might think of attributes as having 3 possible implementations - an absolute value, a probability and a modifier. The absolute value is good in physical tests, so strong people can lift stuff, fast people can just run fast etc. The Shadowrun CRPG works on this basis outside of combat, and I liked it. It was mercifully quick but more importantly characters are competent, they can do what they can do. In principle any system can work this way, as long as the outputs are worked out in advance (what can a Strength 20 character actually do). 

 

It worked okay in social tests too but it didn't seem to describe intelligence and memory tests as well as other systems. They genuinely seem to work better as the target for a random chek, the reason being that there are ~infinite things to know, so a character with Intelligence '9' doesn't automatically know everything that a character with Intelligence '4' does, they just have more chance of knowing any random thing.  Now, I am not saying that you couldn't use these in an absolute value system, but I think you would have to have a somewhat more detailed character record system (e.g. if a character has INT => x, and History skill >= y OR Heraldry skill >=z, then the character knows the thing, otherwise not. And in effect, if you have to improvise at the table, then the GM is just deciding whether the character knows it or not (since the test is fully deterministic, deciding the conditions on the fly is just the same as deciding the end result, assuming the GM knows what is on the player's character sheet).

 

In combat sequences (and other skill-in-adversity environments) I think attributes work best as skill modifiers - a stronger might deal more damage than a weaker one, all other things being equal - but if the weaker character is the more skillful fighter, then their quicker and more accurate blow will trump the raw strength of the other, to some degree. The point of the above then is to argue that attributes become more useful if they are in a form where they can be used for all 3 implementations.

 

 

 

WFRP 1e: Min-Max/Narrow Path Optimization

Recently I was looking at narrow-optimization paths* in WFRP 1e, i.e. if you wanted your character to be very good at one thing, then which career should you choose. Some of them are relatively obvious, some a little less so. Here they are:

 

Weapon Skill: Giant Slayer or Judicial Champion, enter from Pit Fighter, Troll Slayer, Protagonist or Watchman. (Troll Slayer is a no-brainer for a combat-focused Dwarf, I like Protagonist best of the others) (400XP)

 

Ballistic Skill: Targeteer, enter from Bounty Hunter, Gamekeeper or Outlaw (all of these are good; Gamekeeper is strictly the best, since all Gamekeepers get Marksmanship, whereas the other two only might get it, and thus may need to expend another 100XP if they don't) (400XP)

 

Strength: Giant Slayer entered from Pit Fighter; if a non-Dwarf, either Free Lance from Noble or Squire; or Slaver entered from Jailer. If the character gets Very Strong as a starting skill, then Troll Slayer works fine as a Dwarf, and Free Lance is definitely the way to go as anything else. (3-400XP)

 

Toughness: Giant Slayer, again entered from Pit Fighter. If not a Dwarf, Outlaw Chief entered from Pit Fighter. If the character gets Very Resilient as a starting skill, Dwarves can go from Troll Slayer to Giant Slayer, others can go from Bodyguard, Mercenary or Outlaw to Outlaw Chief (3-400XP)

 

Wounds: Giant Slayer, entered from Pit Fighter or Troll Slayer, if a Dwarf; otherwise, Templar via Judicial Champion from Pit Fighter, Protagonist or Watchman; or via Free Lance from Noble or Squire (900-1000XP)

 

Initiative: Highwayman entered from Coachman, Footpad,Outlaw, Outrider, Roadwarden or Toll-Keeper (400XP). I don't think any career grants you the chance of Lightning Reactions, but ideally you would want that as an initial skill too.

 

Attacks: Assassin, entered from Bounty Hunter is the most straightforward way. (400XP), but there are actually lots of other routes for careers which allow taking the free advance in attacks (which Bounty Hunter does not), e.g. Soldier, free advance, 100XP to Bounty Hunter, 100XP to Assassin, 200XP to get Attacks 3 then Attacks 4, so basically: Bodyguard, Marine, Protagonist, Soldier, Watchman (via Bounty Hunter); Noble (via Duellist), Outlaw (via Targeteer). In fact, very strictly speaking, these non-Bounty Hunter routes are better, as you will get the second attack from the beginning.

 

Dexterity: Forger, entered from Scribe OR Thief or Tomb Robber - why the choice? Well, in the main entry, I think that the only way of getting to Forger is from Scribe or Artisan. But the Appendix offers a bunch of different career paths into it, but not including Scribe or Artisan! So, if you go with the logic of the main entries, then Scribe is the way to go; if what is written in the Appendix, Thief or Tombr Robber are better, because you can take the free advance in Dexterity, which Scribe's don't get. (400XP)

 

Leadership: Mercenary Captain, entered from Squire (n.b. the Appendix specifies that a Squire can jump straight to Captain, but this is implied rather than stated in the main text). (400XP)

 

Intelligence: Lawyer, from Exciseman, Scribe or Student. (400XP)

 

Cool: Spy, via Charlatan, which can be entered from Physician's Student, Raconteur or Seer (500XP)

 

Willpower: Witch-hunter via Assassin or Judicial Champion (I have already covered the entries for those; none of the relevant basic careers allow the free advance in WP, I think) (600XP).

 

Fellowship: Demagogue, from Agitator, Entertainer or Raconteur (Raconteur is the best of this bunch) (500XP). 

 

Movement: the Movement system is lame and there is no way to optimize on it really.You can't do much better than be a Thief or, if a Dwarf, a Runner. 

 

So if you played and survived The Oldenhaller Contract and Mistaken Identity, then you could potentially have a Toughness 8 or an Attacks 4 character before you even enter Bogenhafen. Of course, you might want a more balanced character and there is nothing wrong with that, but if you want to, and as ever, subject to GM agreement, then you can have a character who is genuinely top-of-class at one thing. 

 

*I wasn't actually looking at these directly, I was working out what the humanoid minima and maxima to look at WFRP 1e attribute distributions in the population, but this sort of fell out of it...

 

Prices and the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (First Edition) World - Part One

I have recently been exploring some of the prices/costs in the WFRP 1e rulebook and trying to tease out some of the implications for what the world is like. A price, after all, contains lots of information in the real world, and it does in a fantasy world no less.  For example, it influences how the players, including the GM, think about food, travel, loot and enemies.  Valuable things should be objects of envy which are fought over and sought after, whereas some things are too common to steal. The points below are not intended to be exhaustive, but just some things for GMs to consider in their games:

 

1.  Chicken and ale is cheap: A chicken costs 1/-; a simple meal at a tavern is 3/-. An Imperial peasant or labourer must love chicken pie and stew and sandwiches, washed down with beer. And as a further implication, starvation must be somewhat rarer in the Empire than it was in our own world.

 

2. Beef and wine are definitely luxury, status goods. Even more so than today, a dinner of beef and red wine marks out status and success.

 

3. Illumination is somewhat expensive - a dozen tallow candles are nearly a labourer's daily wage - although heating is not, and so life at night is concentrated on rich houses and institutions; and taverns really are bustling places in the winter: basic food is relatively cheap, so taking advantage of the lit-tavern is a real thing in the winter months. Even more than in our own world, they are centres of entertainment, gossip, business and gambling. 

 

4. Armour is rarer than you might imagine. The basic fighter in the Empire is a shield and spear armed militiaman with a helmet, who might or might not have some light armour. Mail armour marks out real, professional fighters, and plate is quite rare, for elites only.  The armour costs and types are indicative of a real world equivalent of about 1350-1400, rather than 1500. The implication is that other marginal societies (e.g. goblinoids) are much the same but more so - the average Orc has a shield and spear, but no armour.

 

5. Cavalry are somewhat rarer than in real life, and true Heavy Cavalry is much rarer: Mounted Sergeants are not riding warhorses, they ride riding horses. Firearms are very expensive (and there is no way that taveern landlords like Gustav have them, or tavern hustlers like Descartes; coachmen might though, because coaches are very expensive too). 

 

6. Guilds are much more powerful than is perhaps indicated, specifically artisanal guilds. Most of the surplus value in the economy is not based on raw materials or cheap goods, it is based on finished goods, and most of that surplus is extracted by guilds or similar organizational heads, rather than the Artisans themselves (a sword costs 28 days of an artisan's wages, for example). Guild discipline must be extremely strictly enforced through a combination of ordinances and implicit or explicit threats of violence.   Conversely, the conflict between Emperor, nobility, merchants and guilds must be very, very real.

 

7.    Peasant music resembles that of the Dwarves in The Hobbit (film version): it is based on recorders and drums and so on, mixed with singing. String and brass music is largely a professional endeavour, and keyboard music is a noble pastime (or through noble patronage).

 

8.    Basic members of society thrive by living at home and sharing costs, eventually saving a dowry for their own house and family.  The dinner scene at Farmer Maggot's in the Lord of the Rings (book) is a reasonable indicator, with maybe 10-12 people sharing a table (although the dish in the Empire would be more likely to chicken and mushrooms: Maggot would be showing his successful farmer status by using bacon). Itinerants on the other hand survive on a very narrow margin. Adventurers are basically in it for quite big scores, and their everyday costs are significantly higher, and anything that involves 3-4 career characters should be in the 'many hundreds of gold pieces' range as a basic minimum. But adventuring can reasonably be pretty dangerous.

 

9.     Basic resources are so cheap that most bandits don't even bother: the ones that do are more like violent beggars. Real bandits are looking to steal armour, prestige weapons, horses and other animals, expensive clothes, wine, books etc. So they are somewhat more popular than in the real late medieval world, since they are mostly more like Robin Hood. Class conflict is real, and the labourers and peasants are more on the side of the bandits.

 

10.    Moving goods by river is the lifeblood of the Empire, particularly for bulk items, as it is about x12 cheaper. Road transport is for small, high-value goods and people. Bandits therefore target coaches, not boats or farms, typically.  Taking a coach is a big decision and wouldn't be done lightly. This is important for Mistaken Identity.  It might be better if coach exterior travel is very cheap, and encouraged (extra protection against bandits).

 

11. Starting with any or all of metal armour, firearms or a horse is a really big deal, as is obtaining or losing one. For a more gritty campaign, it might be better to give the characters who have them, with the exception of nobles and squires perhaps, 20% of the value of the item instead. 

Converting 2e WFRP characters back into 1e - Skills and Talents

When WFRP 2e came out, naturally there was some interest in converting characters back into WFRP 1e, both PCs and NPCs, into appropriate 2e forms. But I don't think there has ever been much on how to convert the other way - now that both editions are very old, then playing either is a conscious retro choice, and each edition has its separate version and appeal, not so different from OD&D and BECMI D&D and AD&D 1st edition.

The skill system interacts with a lot of the changes that were made from 1e to 2e. Apart from a general cleaning up, 2e differentiated between Skills and Talents formally; in practice, the main things were that skills were core, and were stackable bonuses to attributes; talents were non-stackable further bonuses to attributes and tests. Talents were also used as part of the new Magic system, to bound what each character could learn and cast.

In experimenting with converting 2e characters back into 1e, one is left with a few decisions to make. Most things are straightforward, so I will concentrate on areas where this might not be the case.

Skills

Academic Knowledge is a skill which is divided up into lots of independent sub-skills, which groups somewhat similar 1e skills together. For example, 1e History and Theology become Academic Knowledge (History) and Academic Knowledge (Theology) respectively. Of the examples, only Academic Knowledge (Arts), Academic Knowledge (Magic), Academic Knowledge (Philosophy) and Academic Knowledge (Strategy/Tactics) don't have a straightforward fit. I think that Academic Knowledge (Arts) can best be covered simply by the Art skill, but testing against Intelligence, and modified by History and Theology as appropriate. Academic Knowledge (Philosophy) can be thought of as simply a combination of History and Theology (and perhaps Chemistry, depending upon your game world). There is no very obvious fit for Academic Knowledge (Strategy/Tactics), so one could insert a new skill here. The 2e careers which have it are:

Admiral

Cadet

Captain

Crusader

Faceless

Grail Knight

Grandmaster

Horse Archer

Knight

Knight of the Blazing Sun

Knight of the Inner Circle

Knight of the Raven

Knight of the Realm

Knight of the Verdant Field

Knight Panther

Noble Lord

Outlaw Chief

Questing Knight

Sea Captain

Sergeant

Wall Warden

Warrior Priest

Winged Lancer

I see a mostly common thread through this, although I am a bit unsure about including Horse Archer in there. I haven't converted a lot of these into 1e terms, but I think that the following are the closest fits:

Free Lance, Mercenary Captain, Outlaw Chief, Sea Captain, Templar. A new skill could easily be added into these careers. Alternatively, one could say that Battle Tongue is actually the qualifying skill - a bit of a stretch, but plausible. It then makes Strategy/Tactics a much wider skill - all battle combatants are likely to have it. Adding the new skill (or just ignoring it) are probably the more conservative options here.

Academic Knowledge (Magic) is a bit more of a puzzle, and also a setting challenge: do we want non-magical characters to be able to fundamentally 'know' about Magic? There is a bit of me, which thinks no, and this is one of the things which gives clerics their social and political power, as the 'establishment' magic users, even though their magic works on slightly different principles. It makes the 'truth/power-seeking' element of becoming a Magic-user more pronounced. If not, I suggest using 'Magical Sense' as a proxy. Now, the skill description says that it is unique for magic-using characters. However, it is also a skill available to the Scholar career. So what we might say is that acquiring 'Magical Sense' makes any character somewhat 'magic-using/magic aware' and knowledgeable of the background lore of Magic in the world.

Command isn't an issue. Just use advances to Leadership instead.

Common Knowledge is a great skill and I wish it had been in 1e, as a way of incorporating different types of Lore skill. On the other hand, you can almost infer Common Knowledge skills by a mixture of background and career choices.

Gossip is actually a really useful skill in 2e and it is a pity that it wasn't in 1e. I think there are two options here - incorporate the skill, or ignore it entirely. Gossip is quite common as a skill but if you can be bothered, I think it is probably worth it.

Intimidate is also a great skill, because it allows a mechanism for 'social interaction' by mean characters, without a high Fellowship or Leadership rating. Even more than gossip, I would suggest including it; at least include it as a test which is based on Strength or something, even if you don't include it as a skill.

Navigation is an interesting one. In 1e, 'Orientation' was a very powerful skill, which basically meant auto-Navigation. In 2e, 'Orientation' is a talent which is basically an additional bonus to 'Navigation'. I think the simplest solution is replacing all instances of Navigation or Orientation in 2e with Orientation, in the 1e sense. Otherwise, you will need to include Navigation as a new skill; not too hard, but there are a lot of careers which have Navigation as a skill, or at least an option. Or, one potential variation, would be to make 'Orientation' the land-based skill, and 'Navigation' the sea-based skill. I think a lot will depend on how much you want to make navigating a meaningful part of your game.

Outdoor survival is a great skill. On the other hand, in 1e terms, one could make it a property of the 'Ranger' class (plus Explorer, plus Scout) rather than a skill per se.

Perception and Search are conceptually quite similar, explicitly overlapping in certain areas. They work as a bonus to Intelligence in 2e, whereas in 1e this kind of thing would be based on Initiative. I think 2e is entirely superior in this respect. I am quite inclined to include these in a 1e adaptation as a single 'Perception' skill.

Performer is similar to Academic Knowledge, as it is a bucket of separate sub skills rather than one single skill. Performer is for all the individual entertainer skills, and they all map onto an existing 1e skill.

 

Sleight of Hand is Palm Object renamed.

 

Trade works in the same way as Academic Knowledge and Performer.  Many of the trade skills map quite straightforwardly onto 1e equivalents, but by no means at all. However, the Artisan career in 1e gives us some clues as to how we might approach this conversion, but with the minimum of new skills:

Armourer: Metallurgy, Smithing

Bowyer: Bowyer (I don't see a way round of having this as a separate and new skill - unless Carpentry plus Specialist Weapon (Longbow, Repeating Crossbow, Crossbow Pistol, Sling)

Calligrapher: Art

Cooper: Carpentry 

Embalmer: Embalming (likewise, I don't think there is an alternative)

Farmer: Animal Care, Haggle, plus either Agriculture as a separate skill, or have it represented by Herb Lore, if necessary limiting it to agriculture, or even specific types of agriculture.

Goldsmith: Art, Metallurgy

Gunsmith: Chemistry, Metallurgy, Smithing, Specialist Weapon (Bomb, Incendiaries, Artillery, Firearms)

Herbalist: Heal Wounds, Herb Lore

Merchant: Evaluate, Haggle

Miller: Miller (I think this has to be a new skill if you want to include it, unless you think of it as an unskilled task).

Prospector: Metallurgy

Shoemaker: Tailor (I think this is best expressed as a special class of Tailor)

Tanner: Chemistry

Weaponsmith: Metallurgy, Smithing, Specialist Weapon ( Polearm, Double-handed weapons, Flail weapons, Fencing sword, Parrying weapons, Lance)

Hopefully the logic of these kind of choices is fairly cleary, trying to cover the space with a combination of skills.

Talents

Most talents work well, can be straightforwardly imported into 1e. In 2e, the 'standard' is for a talent to give a conditional +10 bonus in a couple of situations, or a +5 bonus to an attribute - this makes sense in 2e, when in 2e, advances are in increments of +5, but in 1e they are in increments of +10. When importing to 1e, I have gone for +10 for everything: clearly that makes some talents just better than others (e.g. Warrior Born is just better than 'Grudge-Born Fury', but I find I don't have too many problems with this - it just postpones slightly the point where characters need to choose between wider performance or narrower specialization. Note that I haven't bothered writing down talents when they are just versions of a 1e skill (like 'Lightning Reactions' or 'Excellent Vision').

Aethryic Attunement: +10 to Channelling (i.e. spell casting) and Magical Sense

Alley Cat: +10 to Concealment - Urban and Silent Move - Urban

Armoured Casting: Ignore Restrictions on Armoured Spellcasting

Coolheaded: +10 to starting Cool

Dealmaker: +10 to Evaluate and Haggle

Dwarfcraft: +10 on tests related to brewing beer, cutting gems, making guns, mining and all smithing

Fast Hands: +20 to WS when casting Touch spells (i.e. for Spellcasters trying to touch their targets)

Fearless: Immune to Fear, reduce Fear to Terror

Grudge-born Fury: +10WS against Goblinoids (or potentially other targets, depending on background. I actually dislike this, I would prefer it to be +1 melee damage)

Hardy: +1 starting wounds

Keen Senses: +20 to all Perception tests

Lightning Parry: forego an attack for an extra parry; don't think this works in 1e due to minor differences in the combat system, but we could either make it a free extra parry (powerful) or allow a character another go if a first parry has failed (but using an Attack to do it).

Master Gunner: Reduce firearms reloading time by half an action

Master Orator: Multiply the effect of Public Speaking by 100 times the number of people.

Menacing: +10 to Initimidationa and Torture tests

Mighty Missile: +1 damage to Magic Missile attacks

Mighty Shot: +1 damage to Missile attacks

Quick Draw: instantly draw a single weapon

Rapid reload: reduce missile weapon loading time by half an action. can stack with master gunner

Resistance to Chaos: +10 to WP to resist Magic and other Chaos effects, immune to mutation, cannot be a magic-uer

Resistance to Disease: +10 to T to resist Disease (renamed for 1e Immunity to Disease)

Resistance to Poison: +10 to T to resist Poison (renamed for 1e Immunity to Poison)

Rover: +10 to Concealment - Rural and Silent Move - Rural

Savvy: +10 to Intelligence

Schemer: +10 on tests involving intrigue, or resisting it

Seasoned Traveller: +10 to common knowledge and speak language tests

Sharpshooter: +20 to aimed shots

Stout-hearted: +10 to resist Fear, Terror and Intimidation

Streetwise: +10 to Charm and Gossip tests in the criminal world

Strong-Minded: Change the Insanity Point threshold to 8 points, with no automatic Insanity until 14 points.

Sturdy: No movement penalties due to armour

Suave: +10 to Fellowship

Sure Shot: Ignore 1AP when using ranged weapons

Swashbuckler: Jumps/leaps take only half the time, increase all leaps by 1 yard.

Trapfinder: +10 to finding and disarming traps

Tunnel Rat: +10 to Concealment and Silent Move when underground

Warrior Born: +!0 to Weapon Skill

Magic Talents

 

These talents are all new, due to the new magic system. They are more-or-less replacements for a combination of 'Arcane Language' and 'Cast Spells'. I won't say too much about them here, since the Magic element of the game needs a longer discussion of the ways of adapting 2e to 1e.

 

Dark Lore (Chaos, Necromancy, Nurgle, Slaanesh, Tzeentch)

Dark Magic (this is like a risk/reward way of casting spells, increasing the power at increased risk; plus you have to use it for casting spells from 'evil' traditions. 

Divine Lore

Hedge Magic (can cast Petty Magic (Hedge) spells without arcane language, at extra risk)

Lesser Magic

Meditation:This is a tricky one, because it is used in a very different way from Meditation in 1e. In 2e, it is a bonus to ritual spell-casting. Here, I suggest renaming it to 'Ritual Magic', with the effect of magic levelx10 bonus to ritual magic casting.

Petty Magic (Arcane, Divine and Hedge)

Characteristics

2e also used Talents as a way of defining and grouping together certain features which creatures/monsters have. This was a great development, since it meant that the DM and the players were 'playing the same game' which is almost always a good thing, rather than having them as independent 'Special Rules'.

Flier

Frightening

Hoverer

Natural Weapons

Terrifying 

Undead

Unsettling

WFRP 1e and 2e Careers: The Hunter

The Hunter is mechanically very similar to the Gamekeeper I have previously looked at, with only small differences between the two. They are probably 'just' distinct enough to be worth keeping.

 

We might query the Strength advance somewhat - there doesn't necessarily appear to be a great justification for it.  There might be more justification for a Toughness advance.

The 2e version is not so different:

Swimming for a Hunter seems okay. The talents make the 2e Hunter a potentially much more lethal character though: Specialist Weapon (Longbow), Marksmanship, Lightning Reflexes and Very Resilient. These all seem reasonable although longbows should perhaps be a rarety. I have also included a possibility of Fleet Footed, which again seems reasonable for a Hunter career. What I am against is having Set Trap: I think this is more usefully kept as role-protection in the Trapper career.

One interesting question is whether to allow a spear hunting build? Not sure about this one, perhaps this should be a separate career. For the moment though, I have included it as a chance in the Hunter career.

One interesting possibility if whether to allow entry to the Hunter career from the Noble career. For Noble characters who live for hunting - an apparently popular and defensible life choice - then perhaps this should be allowable. I think Gamekeepers, Hunters and Trappers should be able to move into each other's career too; and entering the career from Outlaw seems fair enough too. On the other hand, the write-up would of course be inappropriate. It might be preferable to have a separate career for these aristocratic hunters. Anyway, this is the revised Hunter:

And this is my first attempt at a write-up for an Aristocratic Hunter career (if you don't use it, I would consider adding Noble as a career entry to the revised Hunter:

Mechanically, this career is the same as above, except that it should add the following:

Advances: Weapon Skill +10

Skills: Animal Training (Birds of Prey, Hounds, Riding Animals), Ride (Horse), Specialist Weapon (Lance)

Career Exits: Explorer, Free Lance, Targeteer, Scout

So I think maybe it should look like:

Please let me know what you think! It is very much a work in progress...