Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.55409676 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

Its been a while since this has been 'complete'.

What is your take on WFRPG 3e?

I have heard good and bad things.

>> No.55409688

>>55409676
WFRPG 2e is on humble bundle right now for 20$, with a shit ton of supplements

>> No.55409749

I've always been too broke / intimidated to get into Warhammer minis, and I grew up as a D&D fag. I've read a few Warhammer books and absolutely loved Warhammer online.


> Do you really need all that to play tabletop version of it?

>> No.55409823

>>55409676

The good
>Solid initiative system
>The narrative dice system was pretty brilliant
>A lot of solid advice in the GM section
>Good chase and investigation mechanics
>The cards having all the essential information prevents people from looking up shit during a game routinely
>The damage mechanics were pretty solid
>The game had a lot of concepts overall

Cons
>High price point for getting into the game
>Didn't handle more than four players and a GM well
>To actually get a complete Warhammer experience it will take a bunch of supplments
>All the fiddly bits of the bits and bobs are great for in person playing but horrible for online playing
>The stance system was kind of wonky
>Getting new players into it is difficult
>Warhammer 2ed purist hated it with a fiery passion of a million burning suns without even touching it so it limited the player base even more

On the whole, probably the best fantasy RPG I have played from a GM standpoint. You can make a compotent and complete adventure on the fly. If you plan an adventure, after about 20 minutes of prep work you can make something pretty ballin' and entertaining with all the resources available very easily.

>> No.55409864

>>55409749

No. FFG made this version and the way they decided to combat .pdf piracy was by making a bunch of physical components to the game.

>> No.55409894

>>55409749
Well, second edition worked with a single core book..

But then 3rd was spawned at FFG.

Game was that component-realible that D&D 4ed seemed a freeform and you could not have more than 4 players without buying add-ons. That was closest ever to DLC-based TG RPG.

It also felt very un-warhammery.

>> No.55409971

>>55409894

I don't know, I felt it was pretty warhammery.

Hard to remove damage, humble beginnings, everything is a threat, magic is scorned, etc.

>> No.55411515

>>55409894
>It also felt very un-warhammery.
I don't think this is true at all. It totally renewed my love for the setting.

It may have had a touch of the more modern "RPGs are about story, PCs are important to the story, so characters dying a lot can seriously hurt the story" design standpoint but that's it. I still watched PC's struggle with critical wounds and horrible diseases (if anything the diseases may have been a bit too severe).

>>55409823
Yes! It really is a good game with more positives than negatives overall.

It is similar in a way to 4e D&D in that it is a large departure from the previous edition which turns a lot of people off. Both are great and well made games on their own just not what a lot of the older fans wanted.

>>55409688
A terrific value for good books, most of which of the fluff and adventures can still be used for 3e.

>> No.55411560

>>55409676
>turning a fantastic classic low(low-ish?) fantasy roleplaying game with tons of content into a weird new age card game
???

>> No.55411680

>>55411560
Oh no! Change!

Just keep playing 2e then if it was so good.

>> No.55411720

>>55411560
Wasn't a card game. The cards were little more than reference points for character abilities.

>> No.55411732

>>55409676
there's no point in getting into a dead game with specialty dice

>> No.55411776

>>55411732
Why not? The game is quite complete. It is impossible to get the dice or something?

>> No.55411809

>>55411680
>change is inherently good in a world where interactive media becomes worse and more desperate to please a wide audience by the day
I am and I will though, as do the majority of people that want to play a roleplaying game in the Old World. Thanks for your support.

>> No.55411837

>>55411776

>> No.55411867

>>55411837
Ouch.

Base set still comes with a set. Also can play online if you can find and get the FG mod to work.

>> No.55411962

>>55411867
>Also can play online if you can find and get the FG mod to work.

Hmmm, that may be dead too. So maybe it's a dead game unless you already own it.

>> No.55412748

>>55411732
Yeah, it's not like you can't mod the dice or anything...

I'd say it's pointless to get into 3rd now that you literally can't buy the fucking thing from anywhere. Our group is one book away from complete set.

>> No.55413008

>>55411809

Mind you, not like 2e didn't have it's own issues (Like how firearms were a fucking joke)

>> No.55413096

I own every supplement, every single one, I even had to call ADC distribution to find the Bright College pack and they only happened to have one caked in dust in their warehouse.

Rarely played, because my group preferred 2nd edition, we're playing Zweihander right now which is the love letter to 2nd ed, and 4th edition is right around the corner. That said I think it's a damn brilliant game.

Ultimately the problem wasn't even the execution but how it launched. The core set is very bland and lacking the setting rich details, the expansions ESPECIALLY the latter ones really breathed life into it and it felt just as thematic as 2nd ed.

It's hard to recommend because it's now rare and hard to find now, but if you can manage to get your hands on a complete set it's more or less the greatest RPG/board game feeling game you'll own. If you're more a purist, wait for 4th ed or pick up Zweihander

>> No.55413319

>>55413096
I'd say it's a good game for someone who's trying out pen&paper roleplaying. Just a handful of cards instead of digging out a bigass rulebook every 5 minutes.

>> No.55413628

>>55413096
Heroes call was the biggest pain for me to find, personally. Glad I got it. At one point it was selling for over a thousand dollars. Heroes call was pretty bad ass. It had a simple set of outer borders for you to place the creature cards on that would make them boss variants by adding stats and expertise dice to areas and stats depending on what type of boss. Wizards clerics warlords etc.

>> No.55413745

>>55413628
Trying to find Lure of Power. Nothing. I imagine the promise of Slaanesh lewds got all the nerds in total hoard-mode.

>> No.55413780

>>55413008

Blunderbuss seems pretty godlike at first lvl if we are talking fire-and-forget

>> No.55415112

>>55413096
It genuinely pleases me to see there is at least two other people who love 3e in this thread. I always feel like I'm the only one.

We should start a support group!

>> No.55415220

>>55409676
It's an FFG RPG, so I assume it's wonky as shit and purposefully designed around having proprietary bits like dice and cards and whatnot. That's enough for me to disregard it completely.

Then, I have all but three of the 2E books on my shelf, next to my hardcover ZWEIHANDER. And binders of printed fan material (Liber Fanatica, etc). I still play it on and off, though my group played it pretty hard from 2005-2010.

I'm naturally averse to spending extra money on this hobby; TTRPG requires books and dice, and you can digitize both and get them for free if you really want to. Investing in all those extra bits and bobs is a really unattractive prospect to me.

Looking forward to 4e.

>> No.55415408

>>55415220

It is a great RPG if you get the bulk of it, but I can understand people not liking it. It was so different than most other systems it was going to be jarring to most people anyway.

I love it. Probably the best fantasy rpg system I have used, but can easily see why others wouldn't like it for a variety of different reasons.

The bits and bobs, the limited player count for a good session, the non-existence of a solid online play option, the game specific dice, etc.

>> No.55415588

>>55415408
What does it do that 2E or other games don't? Sincerely asking.

>> No.55415759

Played it a couple of evenings and here's the resume: It's unnecessarily complicated and everything it does, FFG Star Wars does better. FFG Star Wars is what you get if you take the WFRP3 system and throw out everything that's annoying and shit.

In WFRP3e, every action has its own card and on that card, its own list of things to buy from. In combat, you don't get to describe shit, because you're way too busy balancing dice pools and calculating effects. This also makes combat drag out needlessly, even after the regular time people should need to get to terms with the system. It even tries to do that with "social combat", we threw that out instantly but I imagine every discussion goes from being RP'd to "Okay his attitude is negative, so I tap "I thought we were friends", my stance is 2 green, my Fel is 4 and I got Persuasion skilled once, so this means...2 blue dice, 2 green dice, 1 yellow die and 2 purple problem dice and 1 black die...Okay I got 2 successes and one benefit remaining, so now from the card I buy..." you get the drift. In a normal game we'd have conversed a bit and then done a dice roll and the GM determines if it's enough.

>> No.55415797

>>55415588
Not him, but many like the "success but..." and "success and..." stuff the dice give. Lots of ways to give small bonuses and penalties ad hoc. Very little need for more than a GM screen worth of rules to play due to the cards. There are some modern touches like better streamlined and balanced skills and stats. Fatigue and Stress system that is both fun and interesting.

Meanwhile it keeps most of the good stuff from 2e, like the careers and fluff and "oi mate, yer fooked" levels of "perilous" if you like.

>>55415759
We had these issues the first few sessions too, but they all got better with familiarity. I could say that about a lot of games though.

I agree the Star Wars is more streamlined, but any revision of a game should be. The stuff Star Wars removed made it quicker but also lost some good stuff as well.

>> No.55415858

>>55415797
We played for 5-6 evenings, that should really be more than enough time to get to terms with a system - but it wasn't, because every time you get a new card, it's essentially a new hit table. And the tables are also bad. As opposed to FFG Star Wars where the advantages and disadvantages let you/the GM go shopping on a general list (ONE LIST), in this game it's very plausible that you roll no success and 8 fucking advantages and the card only allows for "A: One free maneuver" once. That's just shit.

I also didn't enjoy how the die probabilities are geared towards failure unless you minmax very hard. How the system replaces RP with boardgame mechanics. How the stance bar is an interesting idea, but terribly executed. How the core book doesn't actually contain much in the way of proper setting/fluff. I just kept on having problems with it.

>> No.55415885

>>55409894
>It also felt very un-warhammery.
Literally the "it felt like a MMORPG" argument used for D&D 4e.

>> No.55415896

>>55413780
It's not.

>> No.55416035

>>55415858
>And the tables are also bad. As opposed to FFG Star Wars where the advantages and disadvantages let you/the GM go shopping on a general list (ONE LIST), in this game it's very plausible that you roll no success and 8 fucking advantages and the card only allows for "A: One free maneuver" once. That's just shit.

Warhammer had that one generic list as well, just like Star Wars. Your cards just gave more options when taking those specific actions.

>> No.55416042

>>55413096
>we're playing Zweihander right now which is the love letter to 2nd ed

I just stumbled onto that. Having never played WHFRP, but loving everything I'm reading about both it and Zweihander, what are the pros and cons of it? How does it play? What do you like / not like? I'm a D&D fag but have been wanting to get out for years. Unfortunately, I DM for a bunch of casuals

>> No.55416061

>>55415858
>I also didn't enjoy how the die probabilities are geared towards failure unless you minmax very hard.
Sounds just like 2e.

>> No.55416922

>>55415858
As I said earlier, I agree the core book didn't have enough, that's why I said the supplements really brought the system into its own but by the time they came around litteraly no one was interested in the system.

While I'm not saying that you have to like the system, I think a lot of your frustrations come from misunderstanding some rules (it's reasonable given how different this is to anything else), We played a few of the prewritten adventures and campaign hooks and while it took a learning curve eventually combat flowed very fluidly. I did completely immersed myself in the rules at the time though so it may have been chalked up to being able to settle questions quickly. For example there are generic buys you could use advantages with.

Regarding Star Wars, they took a lot that they learned from WFRP3e and applied it which is great, because Star Wars wasn't really about special actions you could take so cards weren't a grave importance. One could argue that neither was Warhammer but some of the special move cards in later expansions are just too much fun, they also injected a lot of the black humor that WFRP had later in the product cycle and its a shame it wasn't there to start.

Ultimately I think this could have been successful if it A) wasn't Warhammer, it could have sold like hotcakes if it was a different property like FFG's own Descent/Runebound setting as the board game elements would have totally fit, or B) wasn't as conservative of a launch and instead featured the crazy design elements of the expansions early. It needed more to set it apart, it wasn't WFRP in the core box, and not different enough to set apart from other fantasy RPGs at the time.

>> No.55417029

>>55416922
There are still concepts I really like about the system that were lost in the translation to Star Wars. We loved the party card dynamic, how talents would slot and lock in, I heard criticism of the stance system but my players thought it was a really cool element especially in how cards behaved differently. Once the stack of career cards grew back to the hundreds we expect of this game setting there was a lot of chances to try new and weird options. As a GM I liked how quickly encounters could be built on the fly and how you modify monsters easily to create more elite baddies, some of the more abstract minigames that expansions gave, when the game is a complete set it's VERY charming but I understand that a lot of folks really dont want to hunt everything down.

As a comment to difficulty, 3e is way easier to accomplish tasks than 2e. Like Star Wars it's more about narrative driving so failures are far less common, especially in combat once stances are shifted. In 2e failure was very common but that's also part of the appeal of it, the comedy that naturally arises from incompetence.

>>55416042
Ultimately Zweihander is a "Greatest Hits" album of WFRP. It puts all the best, choice bits into one book which is extremely helpful (maybe I don't want to look through five splatbooks every game), it doesn't introduce too many new elements but that's not the point, it's about refining a beloved system that's hard to get in hardcover anymore.

This all said I'm excited for both 4e games, including Age of Sigmar because I think that high fantasy setting is ripe for some more epic level gameplay. I'm guessing it'll be Deathwatch WFRP Edition

>> No.55417445

>>55413096
I wish I could play the game. But with everything OOP and hard to find I am stuck in a shitty position. Maybe there is a tabletop simulator mod with all of the components.,

>> No.55417743

>>55417445
That's why I can't really make a strong case if someone says "I think it's dumb and I don't want to play it". I can' t really say "give it a chance" because the core game is really lacking and the complete set is a down payment on a car these days (Myself and the 10 other people who actually liked it snatched up all the expansions when they sold for $10 each on clearance on FFG's site) so the best I can do is run games for people willing to try and at least show what it COULD have been.

The other hard part is that I don't think online play will work as well. Yes they came out with hardcover books that were designed to play without the cards but, scoff at it all you want, they really were the soul of the game. My players really enjoyed looking through their hand of special moves to see what would be best in combat, or slapping down an opportunistic ability rarely seen, they liked slotting them into their character cards, tapping them like magic cards, etc. I think it REQUIRES a GM that's passionate about both the WFRP setting and the flow of the gameplay to make work, but when it does it's a really unique experience that no other game can replicate.

To quote Hunter S Thompson "Too weird to live, too rare to die"

>> No.55417812

>>55417743
>The other hard part is that I don't think online play will work as well.

I got to play with a Fantasy Grounds mod around 2014 or so and it was great as it had everything integrated very well and all worked quite nicely, a lot of fun.

Sadly, I lost touch with that group and it seems the mod no longer works.

>> No.55417904

>>55417812
Okay that's fair. I guess I'm more of a tactile guy but if it works then eventually someone has to archive it somewhere for roll20 or Fantasy Grounds.

>> No.55417926

>>55417904
You don't have the fun of cards, but it's easier to handle all the fiddly bits for stances and stuff. It's a trade off.

The files exist but I guess they don't work with current FG since the mod was never official and hadn't been worked on in a long time.

>> No.55418426

>>55415885
It did not seem to emulate Old World and had different tone and power scope. Anons above claim that owning dozen other boxes fixes it marvellously, but well- I bought that hard in no component-heavy game.

>> No.55418619

>>55418426
I'm the Anon you're talking about and yeah, by the time the expansions came out it feels as fluffy as 2e, especially Lure of Power (one of the hardest to get these days sadly) and The Enemy Within campaign (It's not the same as the classic 1st ed one, but it's still the best prewritten adventure of the edition. Really liked it)

The expansions also brought the "power level" back in line with what's to be expected. It's not that the core game made players too powerful, it's that there wasn't enough options that felt low-tier and your monsters got access to a lot of actions that made them fucking terrifying to encounter. That's one of the best parts of 3e, players didn't know exactly what to expect from monsters even if they fought them over and over because their action cards could change depending on the GM's story needs, gave them a lot of flavor.

Again, the problem is the Core box didn't do enough, and while other games can get away from it this game needed a strong flavor of the setting out the gate. Had some of the elements of the expansions found their way into the core box from the start I think it would have sold a lot better.

>> No.55418832

>>55409676
I think I own all the supplements for this, and although there are bits I really like, I've only ever managed to play a single game of it.

The biggest complaint we had as a group, was that it actually required quite a bit of space to play the game. Two starting characters, and all their associated cards, took up so much room on one side of a table, that it made it really awkward to play. Admittedly, we were in a bar, but the tables weren't the smallest I've ever played on.

I liked the idea of the different stances, although I've heard that it can lead to some weird situations. The dice, whilst annoying to have to buy, lead people to think more narratively about their actions than the percentile system seemed to. The party sheet was a nice addition, although I can see the stress metre becoming a frustration rather than an interesting mechanic, I can see what they were trying to accomplish with it.

Basically, other than the stance system, they pretty much ported over everything I liked to the Star Wars RPG, whilst ditching the bits that I found irritating.

>> No.55419117

>>55418619
They didn't change the world at all from 2e, just rolled it back a decade or so, this meant all you knew of the setting from 2e, fluff wise, or can dig out of the older books is almost all valid.

Ultimately I think we can agree that the biggest weakness is packaging and presentation. Once you have the complete set and dig into it, it's pretty great. How they went about getting that to us was a bit questionable.

>> No.55419206

It sold for too much, with a lot of fiddly physical components, at a time that 2e was doing extremely well with a lot of loyal players. Ultimately it turned into a beta test for the far superior FFG Star Wars system. If you want to play 3e, buy the generic version of the FFG system that's coming out and run the Old World in it.

>> No.55419931

>>55419117
What I meant is that the core box didn't feature enough of the setting, not when the setting took place. The expansions added more of the details that set WFRP apart from other fantasy RPGs

For comparison, the core book of 2e features enough of the setting to get you into the tone of the game. 3e was a lot more conservative, maybe to attract a broader audience, but they should have gone full hog from the start. It sure worked for their 40k RPG releases, don't know why they changed strategy here.

>> No.55420937

>>55415885
Oh, you mean the argument that was used as a positive talking point for the first several years of the game's existence by proponents of the game, which later somehow transformed into 'lol le never tru maymay' by 4e-lovers after they'd become the 'salty grognards' they spent years shitting on?

>> No.55420980

>>55420937
The only people that ever went 4E=WoW were shitting on it and you know it.

>> No.55421409

>>55420980
That's a lie.
It was said all the time after the game came out.
People *impressed* with the game noted how the 'Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller' mapped neatly onto the already-existing 'DPS, Tank, Heal, Mez' paradigm of MMO characters.
It wasn't until the game was on the way out that people conveniently forgot how happy they'd been to make those comparisons originally.

>> No.55421556

>>55421409
I'm not even sure you were alive back then. "Plays like an MMO" is a well worn insult that dates back to 3.0 and to the old Diablo supplement.

>> No.55422944

>>55418832

>Table space complaint

The way we solved this is a card only hit the table when it was actively being used, the rest were kept in a deck/player's hand until such a time

It massively cut down on player space and became far more natural because it gave a clearer picture of what was actively happening with each player at any given time to everyone at the table.

>> No.55423759

>>55422944
A pretty sensible step and one we'd have probably gone with if we'd managed more than a single session.

>> No.55424013

>>55423759

You want to know what is maddening? Having a player group too large to play the game and who only wants to play online for our gaming sessions.

I have a complete set of one of the best fantasy RPG systems out there with about 8 extra sets of dice. The whole spiel.

Got a group of 8 players who all want to play D&D.

They are good folks and a good group. Been meeting once a week for well over 2 years without missing a single session (excluding holidays and the like) so I am not complaining, but on the same token, it is highly disappointing.

I am setting on prime rib and all everyone want to eat is McDonalds.

>> No.55424022

>>55421409

That's not really right at all. Plays like an MMO was never not an insult.

>> No.55424036

>>55420937
>Oh, you mean the argument that was used as a positive talking point for the first several years of the game's existence by proponents of the game

Citation required? I've literally never seen someone say that and treat it as a good thing.

>> No.55424127

>>55424022

It was always an insult. I think anon is confused.

4ed was extremely balanced from a character standpoint, but that was the problem. It really wrecked a lot of the extremes that you get with a party dynamic.

It focused on combat, which most editions do, but it took it to a crazy extreme of combat focus.

It was still entertaining, but really wasn't a good fit because, in my personal opinion, it didn't go far enough to address the flaws with D&D on the whole. It was only slightly different and in some ways the slight differences were better and some ways they were worse. It was a serviceable system and it wasn't total shit like a lot of grognards seems to think it was, but it was also easily replaced with 5ed with next to no reason to ever go back to it.

3ed had enough splat and lore that dipping your toes in it is feasible, hell, Pathfinder is nothing more than 3.5 edition and it still gets plenty of love, but basically nobody stuck with 4e when 5e dropped. And the less mentioned about the Essentials line the better.

Warhammer 3e was a huge, and I mean a fuck huge change to the system from the ground up. Some people loved it, some people hated it, but to be fair it pretty much the only totally massive undertaking I have seen in an established RPG line to completely and utterly change the formula entirely with a new edition and whether or not you liked it, one should still give FFG props for doing what they did instead of just releasing the same shit as always like the did with 40k rpg line (not slighting that line, mind you).

>> No.55424172

>>55424127
>It focused on combat, which most editions do,
>4/10 is now most

>> No.55424181

>>55424172

4e has as much non-combat support as most of those editions. Heck, more than 3.5 if you are not a spellcaster because the skill system actually works.

>> No.55424207

>>55411680
He could, it's much easier to buy/find a group for. Or he could also play 4e, which is going back to the same principles as the first two editions. There's a reason the redheaded stepchild was taken behind the shed and shot.

>> No.55424247

>>55424181
>4e has as much non-combat support as most of those editions.
Seeing as there isn't fuck in the way of mechanical exploration support in 4e, I'm going to go with no.

>> No.55424290

>>55424172

Dig into any edition of D&D, anon. ANY edition, and the bulk of the rules are for how to handle combat and using spells for combat related purposes.

The original game didn't really focus on combat for shit, mind you, and Chainmail was supposed to be what was used, but as time went on flanking, armor bonuses, increases to chances to hit, grapple rules, damage modifiers, etc. have become the main focus for the bulk of D&D for a long, long time.

AD&D was where that shit started too. I loved me some AD&D mind you, and TSR did adventure modules far better than the shit we get for most adventures these days where a DM can run something as soon as he cracks the plastic on the cover of the adventure with fuck all prep time.

I really want to get into do that, personally. Make stand alone level specific adventures that as soon as the DM opens them, everything is laid out so he can read from the shit on the go. Player hand outs for maps, cryptic messages, and the like, quick reference cards for monsters. A random encounter table for any given area with a MM page number for each monster listed if they want to look them up, social interactions for how characters look and act, and have it all done so the group can play through it all in two sessions at the max with their goal being accomplished and growth occurring.

Adventures these days are shit that require far too much prep time from a DM perspective.

Back to the main point though, D&D is pretty heavily combat focused and has been so for decades. If you were doing social shit, you have to kind of wing it with limited influence outside of persuasion, intimidation, and other such skills.

Another thing I have to give Warhamer 3e credit for, the amount of social related skills and abilities were pretty mind boggling in comparison to D&D.

>> No.55424295

>>55424247

So what would you want? Environmental Rules, Wilderness Survival Rules etc? 4e has those.

>> No.55424320

>>55424290
>Another thing I have to give Warhamer 3e credit for, the amount of social related skills and abilities were pretty mind boggling in comparison to D&D.

It's this weird thing with many RPGs. You can have a billion feats and special abilities on 'How to use a sword' that you can't otherwise do but the moment you give people special social abilities beyond a higher skill bonus people throw a shitfit. I'm not 100% sure why.

>> No.55424322

>>55416061
At least with a d100 rollunder system it's clear what the problem is. Throw a few advances to the players, or bump up everyone's starting base stats by 15%, and you can tell the effect. FFG games have so many moving pieces it requires a lot of mastery to see how it all comes together, let alone tinkering with the math.

>> No.55424328

>>55424207

Objectively, 3e was better than 2e in almost every way EXCEPT for the way content was released for it. 2e had everything you needed in one book to run a complete game, 3e pretty much required a bunch of supplemental purchases to get a 'complete' game. When you had all the stuff needed for that game, 3e blew 2e out of the water.

FFG's release of content fucked it up worse than anything else. I am one of the few who don't give the game shit for the proprietary dice though, they really drove a lot of the game in great ways.

>> No.55424338

>>55424290
>the bulk of the rules are for how to handle combat and using spells for combat related purposes.
That doesn't mean that the gameplay itself is combat-focused you chimp.

>> No.55424352

>>55424320
Because stop rollplaying, anon. If you have mechanics for it, it means you're playing the game wrong, because roleplaying games should separate the roleplaying and the gaming as much as possible.

>> No.55424378

>>55424338

Isn't the gameplay (If the rules don't affect it, like you say) dependent on the guy running the game in that case?

>> No.55424432

>>55424328
Guy with complete 3e set here, I don't know if I'd be as bold to say it's objectively better, it's just different.

2nd Edition is a very simple and intuitive system, and I've run a LOT of games with it to where it's created some of the best stories among my group.

That said I do think 3e is innovative in a lot of ways, the real question is was it necessary and I'd say it's not, at least for WarHammer. Had this been their Runebound setting I think it could have been a huge player in the market, making it Warhammer themed was a gamble that didn't pay off but I really appreciate the ideas and development for it.

I'd love to run more of 3e, because it has a refreshing and different feel, but I still wouldn't say that just because it's different means it's better.

>> No.55424476

>>55424378
>xp rules incentivise getting in and grabbing anything valuable over fighting things
>wandering monster checks further incentivise this by punishing standing around and camping in unsafe areas
>morale and reaction rules provide a lot of opportunities to either not have to murder everything or not even have to fight them to begin with
>a suitably creative spellcaster can get you around a bunch of combats
The reason there are so many rules for combat is so you can see how dumb it is to go looking for fights.

>> No.55424501

>>55424476

>a suitably creative spellcaster can get you around a bunch of combats
>The reason there are so many rules for combat is so you can see how dumb it is to go looking for fights.

God forbid you play a Fighter in that case.

>> No.55424535

>>55424501
You Fighter will be spending most of his time playing packmule, because his high STR enables him to carry more treasure and/or equipment that spindlyarms the wizard.

And, because no matter how hard you try you're going to fuck up eventually, when the goblins do work out that you're stealing their shit, you're going to be quite glad he's there to get in the way.

>> No.55425605

>>55424535
>You Fighter will be spending most of his time playing packmule, because his high STR enables him to carry more treasure and/or equipment that spindlyarms the wizard.

That sounds boring as fuck. Also: Isn't that entirely dependent on how the dice rolls go? Fighter is the 'You didn't have high enough stats for any other option' class.

>> No.55426044

>>55425605
For 3rd that was true, but back in ADD fighters were the only class that were consistent damage dealers.

>> No.55426090

>>55426044

Oh, I was actively talking about AD&D. Stat minimums, with Fighter being (iirc) the only one without stat minimums. It literally was the 'You couldn't be a ranger/barbarian/paladin' class.

>> No.55426678

>>55409676
They recently killed the page on the official site.

>tfw can't find it anywhere that will ship here for less than 100$.

>> No.55427148

The Humble Bundle seems pretty good. My friends are ever only interested in playing a custom setting of our own tho, would WHF be easy to adapt? I mainly wanna try it out because it has rules for guns that are probably more balanced than what I was able to come up with.

>> No.55427179

>>55426090
Ranger and paladin were fighter subclasses, and getting good enough stats to play either was ridiculously rare. It wasn't "well you rolled super shitty so here's your consolation prize fighter". Barbarian was a kit. The fighter's ability requirement/prime requisite was Strength

>> No.55427213

>>55427179
Also, in my experience it's spindlyarms the wizard who ends up at the packmule at early levels, especially since there's not much else for him to do and he's likely the one with the lightest basic load

>> No.55428207

>>55427148
The only reason I ever play 2e is to play in Warhammer-land. There are many better systems one way or another if you're looking at pure mechanics.

I'd genuinely rather play 5e D&D than WFRP2e if we were using a different setting.

>>55409894
>It also felt very un-warhammery.
Please give some examples or evidence. Other than enjoying the mechanics more, the setting felt the same to me playing 2e or 3e, GM styling aside.

>> No.55428251

>>55428207
Well, we're currently using 5e for our custom game, but I based the setting heavily off Warhammer Fantasy, so I was thinking maybe it would be fitting. Is it not a very good game mechanically speaking?

>> No.55428289

>>55428251
Some do I guess, but I don't find anything good about it other than the Careers and Warhammer flavor. Even the "revised" versions they did for the 40k games aren't much of an improvement.

While the Warhammer Fantasy setting is one of my top-5, the rules just are functional but not really good, lots of better systems out there. I even say that as someone currently playing in a game.

>> No.55429593

>>55428289

Wonder how Fate would handle something like Warhammer?

Actually, since the whole thing about Fate is being unique characters and Warhammer stressed you are commonplace shit right out the gate, it might not do too well.

>> No.55431118

>>55429593
Is that critical to the game though?

It's a solid fantasy setting, it's just things are generally set against grand heroics. One could say the same for oWoD stuff too, no matter how bad-ass you were, you were still a pawn in Jyhad or whatever.

Warhammer is just against stupid "you're the world saving chosen one" bullshit, which I always felt was crap no matter the system. It's more about a few guys trying to carve out a piece of life for themselves that isn't shit.

I don't see how being a disposable, incapable nobody is a requirement.

>> No.55431955

>>55428289
What are your complaints about 2e? It's my favorite system but I have limited experience with others.

>> No.55432326

>>55431955
I just like very little about it. It's fine, it works, but all of it is simply done better by other games.

Though I will say the magic is interesting. Not a lot of games have "magic is dangerous" as an idea and implement it well, though I wish they would.

>> No.55433569

>>55432326
New Anon here
It's BRP, Basic Roleplay, so of course it's simple. The draw of the WarHammer games isn't that you have some feat that grants you a super combo limit break move but that the ruleset wouldn't get in the way of characters doing creative things. Anytime a player wanted to do something out of the ordinary the GM just needed to access the skill and difficulty, badda bing badda boom. The way it handles critical wounds is very fitting for a sword and sorcery style game but beyond that it doesn't NEED anymore mechanical flare.

Ironically if you're looking for more stuff and more unique abilities in Warhammer than 3e may be right up your ally. The action cards for special moves are filled to the brim with flavorful action, even the monsters have zany abilities they can throw at you. It stifles creativity a bit but if you're more into using the resources at your disposal than coming up with your own 3e does a damn solid job.

I guess if I was going to use a game to represent the grimdark mixed with black humor of Warhammer that wasn't BRP or FFG's I'd use Dungeon Crawl Classics as they're cut from the same cloth but DCC is d20 based

>> No.55434236

>>55433569
My complaint isn't that it's "simple" nor it is about PC's needing "neat tricks", it is that you can find better systems to do everything it does, with perhaps the exception of the magic.

The system is mediocre and I'd never give it a second look if it wasn't for the settings attached.

>> No.55434548

>>55434236
Have ran it for several years with no real problems. Don't fix what isn't broke?

I've got something around 40+ rulesets on my bookshelves because I like trying new things but I wouldn't say any one system is completely better than it at what it sets out to accomplish. Sure you got games that have more interesting or mathmatically precise mechanics or a different leveling procedure but slapping the Warhammer setting onto those rulesets creates a different feel of gameplay. Maybe you like it, maybe you don't. A Warhammer game using FATE would feel very different than a Warhammer game using The Burning Wheel or a Warhammer game using Powered by the Apocalypse or even a Warhammer game using Dungeon Crawl Classics.

All those rulesets change how gameplay feels because they focus on different elements.

What ruleset would you run Warhammer under and why?

>> No.55434987

>>55434548
>Have ran it for several years with no real problems.
You didn't find it strange that people had terrible chances to succeed at skill checks without autistically investing into it? You didn't find it boring when fights stall because people can't hit shit due to the many safety layers available to virtually everyone (parrying/dodging, toughness/armor, low hit chances all around) and a lack of combat options that actually matter? You didn't think any of the career options could use tweaks and reworks?

>> No.55435260

>>55434548
Honestly, after trying to run WFRP3 and Rogue Trader for my friends I gave up on Warhammer games. To be fun they require the players to be into the setting and no one was or was interested in learning.

Any different system I wanted to try would need an adjusted magic system to fit the style and some kind of insanity and taint stuff. That said I bet GURPS would work well, especially being able to adjust starting characters power level to be scrubs if you wanted.

If you wanted a simpler game, could use Barbarians of Lemuria, just turn Warhammer Careers into the BoL job things and there goes most of the game.

Since you have to do work for magic and corruption and stuff, a lot of systems are available.

>> No.55435420

>>55434987
Common mistake with the system for newcomers: Not every test is at +0 modifer. If you're not doing something difficult, then it's not uncommon to give the players a +10 or +20 mod, especially if they describe their action in a way that would grant them a circumstantial bonus ("I want to convince the lord that his manor is no longer safe enough for him or his family, and I show him the cultist dagger we found", that dagger makes the argument more persuasive than just talking, and could grant a bonus). Note this could work in reverse too. Characters in WFRP are more "mundane" than regular fantasy RPG heroes but let the players tell you what extra effort they're putting in. Let them research tomes to grant bonuses to knowledge checks, or tell you how they look for gutters to help with a climb check, etc.

Dodge/parry takes up your reaction, it's like bonus action economy in 5e. Attack the same target twice and, unless they have a talent, they can't dodge the attack, perfect time for a Full Out Attack or Charge or Two Weapon Fighting. What other attack options are you looking for?

Careers work best when they're random, by its design some are more powerful than others. Sometimes you're a Camp Follower, sometimes you're a Soldier, but with time those differences really don't mean too much. If one player is stronger than you in combat use that to your own advantage in other places. WFRP is very much a team game.

>> No.55435489

>>55435260
/by swapping BRP for GURPs you're taking a generic system and replacing it with an even more generic system except now you got all the baggage that comes with GURPs instead.

I don't know about BoL so I can't comment on it, never heard of it.

You are right that a lot of WFRP and it's 40k counterparts is the setting and if people aren't invested then it's hard to get behind but, really that's up to the GM if the players aren't knowledgeable of it. In WFRP you don't need to know about the Dark Gods or the history of Elvan strife, you just need to know about what daily life is like in the Empire and I've found that running a game in 2e's preferred setting: just after the Storm of Chaos, is a good way to get new players interested as it's an Empire trying to rebuild, almost post-apocalyptic, and it's easy to understand the bleakness and tight war economy of the setting. It also makes encountering a single, wounded Chaos Warrior in a foggy forest that much more impactful.

Same goes for the 40k games, especially Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader, they require a GM who knows the setting like the back of their hand so they can breath life and make the session filled with themes and flavors, then newcomers will get into it naturally.

>> No.55435640

>>55435420
Even with a +30 circumstantial mod (the highest one), your chances were shit without minmaxing. The average guy has like 30 in a stat, so he's getting a 60% chance on the easiest task he could possibly be doing. That's just terrible. You can go through 3 careers that have the same skill and end up with a +20% increase, resulting in 80% for the easiest possible task. There's still a considerable margin of failure there for a literal master of his craft trying to do an incredibly easy task.

Dodge/parry didn't use a 'reaction' in 2e. That wasn't a thing. You could do one of each every turn, so you could dodge one attack and parry another. You're mixing it up with the way 40k RPGs handle it.

Because skills are so terribly situational and unreliable, getting random-rolled into a skill-focused career is just a hurdle to overcome before being able to invest into the actually useful combat careers. Those usually have skills in them, too - neat little fluff options on top of actual benefits.

>> No.55435844

>>55435640
>The average guy has like 30 in a stat, so he's getting a 60% chance on the easiest task he could possibly be doing.
Having never played WHFRP, are you expecting to be rolling for the easiest task he could possibly be doing?

>> No.55435912

>>55435489
>/by swapping BRP for GURPs you're taking a generic system and replacing it with an even more generic system except now you got all the baggage that comes with GURPs instead.

This is only an issue if you think that all generic systems come with equal problems.

>> No.55435940

>>55435640
If a skill check is an auto pass, you shouldn't be rolling anything for it. In fact the rules say that if there's no consequence of failure you shouldn't be rolling in the first place. In play we never had a problem with people failing "too often", and if it's something that has a risk of failure but still needs to succeed you can give them the success but with some consequence, Degrees of Failure is built for this ("I failed to pick the lock by less than a degree" "Okay, you manage to shimmy the lock open enough that you can force it open but your picks got chewed up in the process").

You're right about reactions, but it's still the same dang thing pretty much. Keep in mind that Dodge Blow is an Advanced Skill meaning you can't use it untrained which the vast majority of enemies do not (except higher threat ones, obviously). It may be harder to hit someone than in a game like D&D but they specifically describe that each attack is an exchange of blows and defensive moves and when each blow has the potential to cut you down in a hit or two combat is pretty deadly (unless everyone is clomping around in full armor and has a TB of 5 I guess but that rarely happens). In my experience combats wouldn't last any longer than a 5E encounter and FAR more efficient than a 4E encounter.

And I don't know what games you're playing but even Fishermen in my games would find usefulness, but then again our campaigns were a balance of maybe 60% intrigue to 40% combat. Players have actually called out their favorite careers to play and it's usually things like Ferrymen, Rat Catchers, Agitators, and Baliffs rather than what you may expect to be popular.

Ultimately WFRP is a very different game than most fantasy RPGs. You really gotta be into the sword and sorcery style games to get into it. My group also loves DCC, Torchbearer, Hackmaster, and now the new Conan 2d20 game so we're very much used to the scrappy survivalist games.

>> No.55435991

>>55435912
I don't, and you're right that maybe you can live with the problems of one system better than another. I think it's a lot of work for a small change but if it works for you then give it a try.

At this point if we're trying to system hack the game and not use the upcoming 4th Edition or even Zweihander it might be fun to use FFG's Genesys engine.

>> No.55436133

>>55435844
>>55435940
>If a skill check is an auto pass, you shouldn't be rolling anything for it.
But then why include modifiers for "very easy" tasks, and then why does that modifier still result in shit odds in practice? Did the developers put them there with the intention that they're not actually supposed to be used? That doesn't make any sense. The developers just messed up. The solution there isn't situational modifiers, it's bumping up people's stats all around so that they wouldn't have such miserable odds of succeeding at the easiest shit.

>It may be harder to hit someone than in a game like D&D but they specifically describe that each attack is an exchange of blows and defensive moves and when each blow has the potential to cut you down
It's the same in D&D, and in both cases it's just pointless fluff that doesn't mean anything and sometimes actively contradicts itself when things like on-hit effects are present. You can actually make multiple attacks later down the road, for fuck's sake. The mechanics/fluff dissonance and general abstractions are unavoidable sometimes, but sometimes, like in this case, they're meaningless and stupid. Why are you even bringing up D&D, though?

>> No.55436309

>>55411560
The "content" of WFRP was the setting and a few prewritten campaigns. In terms of hard game rules 1st and 2nd edition didn't really have anything to recommend them.

What 2nd did offer was a wealth of background and fluff writing that kept the game current with 20-odd years of setting development and retcons from GW. Luckily all those books are still available and as useful as ever for whatever campaigns you want to run in the Old World. As an actual game it was a step back from 1st edition and you couldn't pay me to play it again.

>> No.55436328

>>55436133
Because I'm trying to find a point of reference since you're saying that combat i too hard and no one hits anything, trying to figure out what game you're playing where you expect to hit people all the time. D&D makes it easier to hit, but creatures have more hit points, WFRP is harder to hit but it takes less hits to take out someone (Enemies die once they hit 0 wounds, typically, which is commonly overlooked. Only important characters use the traditional critical hit system).

The same goes for skill checks, D&D is one of those games where it's super common to roll a 20+ on a perception check so I thought that might be where you're coming from where WFRP's modifier system feels too hard. At my table we've never had a problem with it but it may be because we have different expectations. I'm not going to make a Farmer make a skill check to identify that some stalks of wheat have a strange black rot that's not common to the grain but I will make him roll to identify what it is. It's all about how the skill check is framed and what the player adds to it.

>> No.55436883

>>55409676
3e reprint when? Even just a pdf release with print-it-yourself action cards would be a godsend.

>> No.55436949

>>55436883
Considering that Cubicle just gave out 2nd ed dirt-cheap to fan up interest for 4th ed... Not very likely to happen anytime soon, if ever.

>> No.55436967

>>55436328
D&D can have damage sponge problems at high levels but that doesn't excuse WFRP's whiff problems. In any case it's a bit more satisfying to spend your turn rolling and doing chip damage instead of rolling and missing.

Both games (excepting outlier editions) share the more fundamental issue with combat, which is that there tends to be a lot of it and it takes too long and you have nothing interesting to do if you don't cast spells.

>> No.55436992

>>55435940
>now the new Conan 2d20 game
You don't fool me, people don't play 2d20 games.

>> No.55437010

>>55436949
It's precisely that that made me think they could just as easily release the pdfs for 3rd

>> No.55437153

>>55436883
>>55437010
It's complicated because the game is owned by FFG but they no longer have the rights to Games Workshop products, so they couldn't offer the pdfs unless they did it for free which is highly unlikely.

>>55436967
This sounds like it's boiling down to personal preference because my players much prefer rolling gruesome damage and watching a limb go flying, even when it happens to their own character. But given the games we play we have always preferred that high risk gameplay over more consistent chip damage as you put it. As for "having nothing interesting to do if you're not a caster" most WFRP games don't feature a caster at all and we still have fun with it. Then again both GM and player are filling their moves with flavor instead of just saying "I make an attack".

>>55436992
Haven't tried Infinity because it isn't out, Star Trek is busted, but Conan has been quite a hoot to play and the ruleset really gives into the setting (there's even a mechanic for holding the severed head of your enemy aloft to scare away people, or causing devastating morale damage when you slaughter masses of minions in one combat, etc.) We;ve only been playing for a month but we like it so far. It feels like Conan was way more thought out than Star Trek was, Trek has almost no character development in it whatsoever while Conan has a really fun lifepath system. IT's really thematic.

>> No.55437535

>>55437153
>gruesome damage
>high risk gameplay
>WFRP 2e
You're lucky when you hit something, let alone killing it.

>Then again both GM and player are filling their moves with flavor instead of just saying "I make an attack".
>mistaking fluff for substance

>> No.55437641

>>55437535
I don't know what your group's problem is. Like I said combats don't last any longer than they need to. Other games have had more dragged out combats. Are you expecting combat to end in a single round?

And please don't shit on people for roleplaying instead of rollplaying, come on guy.

Let's frame it this way: What game system do you actually like? Not game type, give an actual game that you prefer the combat of. I think that will tell us a lot more about what you're looking for in a game than just telling us what you DON'T like about this one.

>> No.55437692

>>55437153
Did you try Mutant Chronicles 3e? That's the very first version. The Infinity RPG core's in the Infinity general OP

>> No.55437752

>>55437641
I'm not getting into this whataboutism bullshit with you. Make an argument that actually shows some objective merits of the system instead of telling people to homebrew any flaws they point out away and accusing them of being rollplayers when they tell you that it doesn't make the system less inherently flawed.

>> No.55437771

>>55437641
>And please don't shit on people for roleplaying instead of rollplaying, come on guy.

It's not about shitting on it, but it is not a valid "game feature" of a system as it can be applied to any game.

>> No.55438196

>>55437752
Where did I say anything about homebrewing? I play the game as its written, unless you're saying that players describing their actions is "homebrew" in which case I'm REALLY curious about what games you play then.

From your arguments it strikes me that you want to play a game that has a long moves list of special abilities that are listed on paper, and you like to play more literal and game like.

If I knew what games you actually like I could get a better understanding of where you're coming from but instead you just want to be a negative nancy all over the place. All I'm asking is what game do you actually have fun with.

>>55437692
I had forgotten it's by the same folks, no I haven't tried it. The setting wasn't really my thing but that may have been soured by the weird Sci Fi channel show/mini movie whatever that was.

>> No.55438244

>>55438196
>still deflecting
Just fuck off.

>> No.55438316

>>55438196
>From your arguments it strikes me that you want to play a game that has a long moves list of special abilities that are listed on paper, and you like to play more literal and game like.

Not the guy you're replying to, but that is something I like in an RPG and it was a major point in 3e's favour. Giving PCs access unique advanced abilities only adds to a player's options, never limits them.

Describing your actions doesn't go very far in a system as regimented as the average RPG combat, and it gets old very quickly in a process that takes as many roll and repeats as WFRP 2e combat

>> No.55438870

>>55438244
>Still not answering a simple question
Same to you, friendo

>>55438316
I had even made that suggestion way up in the thread, that if you're a player that wants more hard-coded special abilities 3e is right up your alley. Especially if you manage to get the expansions (which is hard and sucks, I know), you have a huge variety of special moves both combat oriented and non-combat oriented.

I wouldn't say FFG needed to release it all at once, because clearly these expansions were written over time, but it's really unfortunate that the writing got a lot better and the flavor got rich long after the game was already dead commercially. It's too bad that passion wasn't in the core box. Even the monsters have really fun and inventive action cards.

As for 2e, I don't know if it's just we had a better grasp of the rules or we just enjoyed embellishing a roll with details but combat never felt repetitive, at least no more so than any other fantasy rpg on the market. It might be that GMs running it would rely too heavily on a monster just running up and then hitting someone until one of them dies or something or maybe a misunderstanding of the rules (like Dodge not being an action everyone can take, in fact most people couldn't) or maybe not taking advantage of more advanced actions like All Out Attack. I'm not sure but I never felt in the several years of running it or its 40k counterparts that it was any better or worse than other RPGs. I love a variety of game systems, and I think some focus on different elements than others, but I feel it's just a difference and depends on what the group wants.

>> No.55438928

>>55438870
Quick clarification:
I will say that Deathwatch had a huge problem with combat. Thankfully it evolved with Black Crusade and Dark Heresy 2nd Ed but Deathwatch tried to apply an epic power level to rules that were low power and it quickly broke the system (Most notably in how Full Auto behaved. It was okay in DH but once you had Space Marines with Heavy Bolters the issues with how the mechanic was worded came out. BC was a much needed fix).

>> No.55440987

>>55427148
>>55428251
Try looking at Zweihander, which is less Warhammery but has the same basic grimdark humour fantasy because the numbers are already filed off.

I tried using WFRP2e for a homebrew game, and it really didn't work well. The game is great for Warhammer, but it doesn't work well for anything else.

>> No.55441026

>>55438928

iirc, a heavy bolter in Deathwatch could cut it's way through a tank pretty fast if a marine was holding it.

>> No.55441670

>>55440987
I got the bundle an hour or so before your posted that. Too late now to back down.

To be fair i'm fairly new to all of this so maybe it won't be so bad, at the very least I could take some stuff from it, I like what this guy >>55438870 said earlier about the game being more about landing 1 or 2 critical blows instead of multiple chip damage blows, since it's appropiate for our settings.

>> No.55443326

The D&D 4E of Warhammer

I wish someone scanned all the materials

>> No.55443343

Is there literally any reason you couldn't pirate the books and use cardboard shit for the tokens with some imagination?

>> No.55443407

>>55443326
Most, if not all, of it was available OEF on DTRPG until FFG lost the license. I'm missing the following:

WHF02 The Adventurer's Toolkit
WHF10 Creature Vault
WHF12 Player's Vault
WHF14 Game Master's Vault
WHF21 Dreadfleet Captains
WHF22 Faith of Sigmar
WHF23 Bright Order Magic
WHF24 Faith of Shallya
WHF25 Celestial Order Magic
WHF26 From the Grave
WHF27 Faith of Morr
WHF28 Grey Order Magic

>> No.55443878

>>55443407
I have all the main sets, but non of the WHF21+ print on demand ones. Which on one hand I feel shitty I missed, on the other I know I'll never play again, so guess it is money saved.

>> No.55443896

>>55443878
I don't even know if they're different or if they're just compilations of cards from the other sets. I just pulled the list off Wikipedia. Post WHF02, 10, 12, and 14 if they're clean.

>> No.55443912

>>55409676
Still too expensive. I'm not paying $90-100 for the package simply to see if I'll like it.

>> No.55444026

>>55443896
Oh no, they are rather small but indeed have new spells for the specific cult/lore. I don't know if there was anything broken in them or anything but it just gives more choices. Though the ones with just the Faith and Magic sets are fine.

If I recall (it's been a while), the GM and Player vaults are the full boxed set reprints of half the basic set I believe. The Adventure's Toolkit was an additional player set of dice, basic cards and stuff (if you note the base game can only have 3 players base due having only 3 basic sets of cards, this opens it up to a 4th player).

Creature's vault is the box with bits for the Creature's Guide (which is hardcover form).

So missing those 4 boxes means you're missing no content in digital form. It's just the physical bits.

>> No.55444086

>>55441670
Rather than landing 1 or 2 critical blows, it's more like you're landing 1 or 2 chip damage blows once in a blue moon unless your character is an autistic savant of combat.

>> No.55444108

I've never actually looked into 3e. How did it play/how was combat?

>> No.55444176

>>55444108
It is a little complicated, but everything is literally right in front of you. It uses a universal mechanic with the dice (all skills, saves, combat, etc roll the same way) and you have cards for stuff you can do with the rules right on them (your Fireball or Cleave mechanics are right on the card).

The game runs on "everything works this fundamental way, unless you have something to say otherwise", so after a few sessions it moves pretty smooth.

It's interesting and fun if you can get past the "it's different" thing.

>> No.55444286

>>55443896
All the Magics and Faiths are just clear plastic packs with about dozen or so cards in them.
It's literally a small pack of spell cards.

>> No.55444305

>>55444176

Interesting. How wide were the character options? Was it all on the ratcatcher end or could elven rangers/mages and such also be played?

>> No.55444581

>>55444305
It's Warhammer, so you're supposed to start as a scrub.

Apprentice Wizard and Initiate Priest are both there (as are less savory things like Witch) to start as and Witchhunters and various Knights as later careers.

You're a bit less shit than in WFRP2, you tend to be a bit better off, but it is still a "start from the bottom" type system.

>> No.55444600

>>55444581

Right. 2e had non-human races so I imagine 3e does as well but a bit less shit than 2e does sound good (I often found that 2e was just flailing away until you eventually succeed, which could get dull)

>> No.55444687

>>55444600
Dwarfs and (sadly) Elves come in the main set. Halflings and Ogres (!) in... Call of Heroes? I don't know, another set. They all have custom racial-only Careers, expanded upon in the very excellent Dwarf set (Runes!).

>> No.55444697

>>55444687

Cool. Do elves get anything interesting?

>> No.55444761

>>55444697
They have some elf-specific careers, IIRC, elves have two or three logical career paths. Obviously their starting stats are different as with every race.

>> No.55444854

>>55444697
Some kind of bow shooting thing, some kind of weird melee-dancer thing and maybe something else? Wood elf stuff mostly I guess.

Elves are shit so didn't pay much attention.

>> No.55445165

>>55444854
Wardancer and Waywatcher being the WE-only starters. HEs have Sword Master as their only starter of their own.

Really no Elf-restricted later careers to speak of, where as dorfs have a few. Elfs didn't get a real book of their own at all, I think.
Of course, they have all the open careers and a lot of the somewhat restricted ones.

>> No.55445182

>>55445165

Can they go into the magic classes? Or did it go 'Elf magic is too good for a PC to learn'?

>> No.55445209

>>55445182
They have their own Arcane career.
Wizards are human-only because Colleges of Magic.

So you can sling spells as a knife-ear but you can't get the College-specialization. I'm not aware of the specifics what the college brings into table.

>> No.55445259

>>55445182
I don't recall one, as yes proper High Magic is probably something that shouldn't be in the hands of the PCs. They aren't allowed into the Colleges either.

I just don't like Elves as PCs in Warhammer, they feel so much better as "the other" kinda alien half-allies, half-enemies and having one in the group feels like it cheapens that.

But that is me and not 3e specific

>> No.55445318

Is it worth trying to get into this with the 2E humble bundle stuff?

>> No.55445330

>>55445318
Only if you really like the setting.

>> No.55445339

>>55445330

I and one other dude really do. Worth roping 2-3 others in with no knowledge of anything WH related at all, or will they just bail after 1-2 sittings.

>> No.55445351

>>55445259

Wouldn't dwarves also fall into that?

>> No.55445366

>>55445339
It depends. The game itself isn't too good, but if they're new to RPGs and really want to play some, you might be able to trick them into thinking it's fine.

>> No.55445374

>>55445366

They've only ever played a bit of 4E so that shouldn't be too hard.

>> No.55445377

>>55445351
Dwarfs have been an ally of the Empire since before it's founding. One of the tenants of the Sigmar cult is "dwarfs are awesome" and the higher ups (or just the Theoginist?) take dwarf names.

On top of that, many Imperial towns and cities have dwarf settlements, they are nearly as integrated as halflings.

>> No.55445390

>>55445318

Did 2e ever do any books on some of the non-TT nations like Tilea? As I remember the book said that there were elves living in that nation (In some of the cities. Which is the basis for the 2e elf race, elves living in human lands) which would have been cool to expand on.

>> No.55445391

>>55445374
If they like 4e D&D they'll probably have horrible allergic reaction to 2e WFRP.

You'll have to hammer home "this is a very different style game"

>> No.55445394

>>55445374
4e is actually good so you might end up causing a contrast.

>> No.55445405

>>55445391

Nah they hated the need for models / tokens on a map and want more freeform roleplay. I was actually the DM and just got sick of it eventually and it all petered out.

>> No.55445449

>>55445394

I don't have much experience, but it just seemed like a cutrate skirmish game / attempt to turn world of warcraft into a tabletop game.

>> No.55445485

>>55445449
Every other edition of D&D has the same goal in mind even if they claim otherwise, but with rules that aren't as well thought out. WFRP suffers from that too, but the setting is cool so people are much more lenient towards it.

>> No.55445506

>>55445449
A discussion for a different thread.

>> No.55445513

>>55445506
>>55445485

Fair deuce.

>> No.55445531

>>55445449

Eh, not really. It's a pretty good cooperative RPG. Most RPGs have a pretty token effort into teamwork, while 4e went whole hog on it (Very few classes have no interaction with allies).

It's less 'Designed around an MMO' and more 'The iconic D&D party is a fighter, a rogue, a cleric and a wizard. Let's try to give them all equal purpose/an interesting style of play/interaction with each other'. Not what people will always want but for what it's designed to be (A band of brothers working together to overcome goals with a good combat frame) it does it well.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action