I'm considering picking one of these up, both are currently available to me, but I really only can afford one at this time. Which would you recommend and why?
I'm considering picking one of these up, both are currently available to me, but I really only can afford one at this time. Which would you recommend and why?
I'd have to vote 2nd edition- the magic system for 1st edition was originally a stop gap, since Realm of Sorcery was due to come out. That took years and even then was a bit all over the place. First ed is a big beast of a book, suffering from bloat and poor editing. It's also a bugger to find anything in. There was also the issue of High Level Play- once you got to a certain seniority, there simply wasn't much to do- it made little sense for nobles, rich merchants and bishops to go hunting Skaven.
Second edition is a lot more sleek, more useful and manageable game and is actively being expanded by Black Industries. This wasn't a new edition for it's own sake- every change is warranted and improves play.
ive played some recently in 2nd ed
I like it
its weird but i like it
Magic is insane, or rather will drive you insnae
but it fun
heh
2nd ed.
Played 1st for years, magic sucked totally. They got a lot fixed in 2nd. But still play the old campaign, it's worth it :)
(The question is not: which campaign, it's THE campaign ... )
I assume you're referring to The Enemy Within campaign?
yeah, they are both good, but nobody understood magic in 1st ed.
yeah, they are both good, but nobody understood magic in 1st ed.
The problem was that the magic system was kludged together from the table-top wargaming rules and not uniform (sort of like Eldritch Wizardry before 1st Ed. AD&D). The expanded magic rules in Realms of Sorcery reflected this lack of a coherent magic system. It would be more accurate to say that there was no magic system in WFRP, but rather several semi-related magic systems.
The biggest problem with spellcasting in WFRP was that it cost Exp to learn spells, as well as improving abilities and learning skills, which meant any spellcaster was going to be hurting when it came to progressing as a character or advancing to the next "profession."
2 E.
Its rules light and it gets support ,both official and unofficial(http://www.liberfanatica.net/)
As previously mentioned; the new magic system works.
Stuff my players reacted to:
1. Encmbrance rules- make your own :)
2. PC trappings - some PC 's start with so much "stuff" they dont "need" to adventuring at all. If they start out with a gunpowder weapon and/or a horse they can sell them and get armour upgrades making it hard to balance the group against threats.
We made some in-game solutions to this, and we divided weapons cost by 10.
and dont by "Old world armoury" it only makes the problem worse:)
Good luck!
|
I can only extrapolate on the previous edition by reading about the changes made: As some people above mentioned 1e seemed to be somewhat less "smooth". I read here and there that some people stick to it and don't want to convert, but every new supplement will come out for 2e.
So far I really liked the rules light approach of 2e. Each adventure and all supplement stress role playing, not roll playing. Supplements also clearly concentrate on back ground and role playing information. Equipment, feats, monsters, and spells are considerably less numerous and still everything has a very distinct feel to it.
The one reason in favour of 1e is the infamous "Enemy Within" campaign which was unfortunately never officially published for 2e. But you can find online conversion annotations so you can quite easily use the campaign with 2e.
Finally german players should choose 2e in any case!
In comparision to the english version a lot of error editing was done. Also *all* german 2e books are beautifully illustrated hard cover books which are easily on WotC level in terms of optical appeal.
I'm considering picking one of these up, both are currently available to me, but I really only can afford one at this time. Which would you recommend and why?
Unless there have been drastic changes to a game I find it is always better to go with the most updated (newer) edition. Most game systems are not like D&D where everythnig changes from edition to edition.
I recently acquired the first part of "The Enemy Within" campaign, Shadows over Bögenhafen (dirt cheap on ebay, 1,50€, and near mint). It says Volume one on the cover, and it is a later compilation volume (I do not have the book right at hand, but it was from around the mid-90ies, IIRC, and 120 pages strong.) It is a sourcebook and the first adventure, I think. I always heard that this is a very good campaign, and now being able to get it right cheap, I just had to buy it.
As Warhammer has a tradition of re-editions, I´m a bit confused which volume would be the next. Is there any source on the net, where you can get more details about the following volumes?
Thanks
Stefan
Try this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_Fantasy_Roleplay or this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Warhammer_Fantasy_Roleplay_pub lications
I think you've got part 1 and 2 , next is Death on the Reik (recommended!),
Power behind the throne,Something rotten in kislev and Empire in flames.
Ihaven't played the last 3 installments but rumour has it that they are not as good as the first 3.
for a good WFRP site go Here
Thanks for the pointers. The website is looking great!
Stefan
So I've been looking over warhammer 2E, and overall I like the look of the system. However, the skills seem a little out of wack. For instance, when you start most of your attributes start at around 25-35%. An average difficulty test has no modifier, so that means that the character is going to succeed only 25-35% of the time. A very easy task has a +30% modifier, which still only ends up being a success about 55-65% of the time.
I'm wondering if there is anyone who has played this game that can comment on this. I think my players will feel frustrated and annoyed if they can only succeed on supposably "very easy" tasks 60% of the time.
|
2e for sure. 1e is a game you play knowing there are warts - huge ones. Doesn't go over so well with "Kidz" these days. 2e is a great re-imaging of the 1e game, what sort of sucked was the setting it in the Storm of Chaos period of the Warhammer world. Great thing about 1e is one book = play forever, 2e I would strong suggest the bestiary (which I firmly believe is the best ever printed for any game), so in 2e, 2 books = play forever.
Currently looking for players for a 2e game myself.
|
|
So I've been looking over warhammer 2E, and overall I like the look of the system. However, the skills seem a little out of wack. For instance, when you start most of your attributes start at around 25-35%. An average difficulty test has no modifier, so that means that the character is going to succeed only 25-35% of the time. A very easy task has a +30% modifier, which still only ends up being a success about 55-65% of the time.
I'm wondering if there is anyone who has played this game that can comment on this. I think my players will feel frustrated and annoyed if they can only succeed on supposably "very easy" tasks 60% of the time.
Welcome to the world of NON-herioc roleplaying!!! :)
Seriously it works really well. Not a game of superheroes (aka D&D/Pathfinder) for sure. A skilled person would have +20%, if we make is an easy task that comes to +50%, giving an 75-85% (assuming no advancements in the stat). Compares not too badly with D&D/Pathfinder.
All I can really say is that in play it doesn't cause issues because everyone is in the same boat - same goes for combat.
Probably one of my favourite systems - Chris Pramas did an awesome job.
S.
Well I was considering adding a houserule whereby starting characters could pick 3-4 of their trained skills and begin with the +10% bonus in those skills, so that they can at least feel somewhat competent in skills that they supposably have training in. Does this seem like a good idea or would it throw the game out of whack?
I would still think that a person who is considered well trained in a skill and is doing something with that skill that is considered "very easy" should succeed more like 95% of the time.
So I've been looking over warhammer 2E, and overall I like the look of the system. However, the skills seem a little out of wack. For instance, when you start most of your attributes start at around 25-35%. An average difficulty test has no modifier, so that means that the character is going to succeed only 25-35% of the time. A very easy task has a +30% modifier, which still only ends up being a success about 55-65% of the time.
I'm wondering if there is anyone who has played this game that can comment on this. I think my players will feel frustrated and annoyed if they can only succeed on supposably "very easy" tasks 60% of the time.
Welcome to the world of NON-herioc roleplaying!!! :)
Seriously it works really well. Not a game of superheroes (aka D&D/Pathfinder) for sure. A skilled person would have +20%, if we make is an easy task that comes to +50%, giving an 75-85% (assuming no advancements in the stat). Compares not too badly with D&D/Pathfinder.
All I can really say is that in play it doesn't cause issues because everyone is in the same boat - same goes for combat.
Probably one of my favourite systems - Chris Pramas did an awesome job.
S.
Yeah I have the pdf of the corebook and the bestiary. I also have the 3E boxed set, and I'm currently playing in a 3E game. I like the 3E system quite a bit. I'm not so big on all the action cards because they are reminding me too much of 4E D&D, which I was looking to get away from. I also don't like all the components to be managed. I'm getting used to the custom dice and the dice pool mechanic (it's growing on me). However, I often don't have a very good sense of what my actual odds of success are when I use it.
Anyhow, although I'm having fun playing it, I'm not so sure I want to run it in the longterm. The simplicity of the 2E system caught my eye, but some of the odds of success for skill checks seem really wonky to me (even taking into account that it is supposed to be a gritty game).
2e for sure. 1e is a game you play knowing there are warts - huge ones. Doesn't go over so well with "Kidz" these days. 2e is a great re-imaging of the 1e game, what sort of sucked was the setting it in the Storm of Chaos period of the Warhammer world. Great thing about 1e is one book = play forever, 2e I would strong suggest the bestiary (which I firmly believe is the best ever printed for any game), so in 2e, 2 books = play forever.
Currently looking for players for a 2e game myself.
|
|
Well I was considering adding a houserule whereby starting characters could pick 3-4 of their trained skills and begin with the +10% bonus in those skills, so that they can at least feel somewhat competent in skills that they supposably have training in. Does this seem like a good idea or would it throw the game out of whack?
I would honesty try it as is. We haven't really found it an issue. If the GM feels the task is 'stupidly simple' for a person trained in that area - autopass. Remembering in all systems rolls are there for when failure would cause some dramatic effect, not to see if you can cross the road.
Simple is very true of 2e WHRP. Previously I have never used figures, but works fine with them also. Ther magic system is genius. Of course if you have issue with the skill %'s you may not like the casting rolls - shudder is all I'm saying, 40% chance of actually getting the spell off (example used, not all spells) and 10% of something unpleasant happening isn't good odds for a new young wizard.
I would suggest you go vanilla initially and see what people think. Get people to read what their starting characters are and really THINK, would I in the dark ages have found that easy?
Good luck,
S.
Well I would have to be the dissenting voice and throw my support for 1E WFRP. I have lots of the 2E stuff and the system just didn't do it for me. I do like the magic system for 2E but the combat is a trifle boring and reminded me of the early days of 3.0 D&D with all of the partial actions and such. I have been an on and off WFRP player/GM for about 20 years now and just can't bring myself to use the full 2E ruleset.
How does the combat system vary between 2E and 1E?
Well I would have to be the dissenting voice and throw my support for 1E WFRP. I have lots of the 2E stuff and the system just didn't do it for me. I do like the magic system for 2E but the combat is a trifle boring and reminded me of the early days of 3.0 D&D with all of the partial actions and such. I have been an on and off WFRP player/GM for about 20 years now and just can't bring myself to use the full 2E ruleset.
|
|
How does the combat system vary between 2E and 1E?
At a core it doesn't. 2e throws in the idea of full and partial actions, other than that apples and apples really. Restricted set of actions in 2e however, doesn't take long to pick up at all. 1e is sort of all or nothing. I reason I say go 2e is that 1e relies on everyone 'playing the game' rather then 'playing the rules'. In 1e everyone ends up a 'fighter', Elven Assassins are almost unstoppable in combat and Dwarfs unwoundable. Wizards althought mentioned, don't ever exist as a PC. In all my years playing 1e no one ever went any form of caster - in terms of XP by the time you could prevent yourself from getting rained on the Elven Assassin was tearing apart all comers. Don't get me wrong 1e has WAY, WAY, WAY more feel to the game than 2e - again due to the Storm of Chaos setting.
If your after simple and perhaps a more balanced party then 2e is the way to go. Advancement is slower in 2e compared to 1e also due to the +5% per advance rather than +10%.
Again, I agree with PW above in part, however, as a 'game' 2e does work better.
I'd play 1e at the drop of a hat, but if your new to the rules then 2e is an easier 'in' than 1e.
Both AWESOME games it must be said. You can't go wrong with either. Makes it hard to have edition wars really... ;)
S.
|
|
I played a druid and by the end of the campaign, I was far and away the most powerful member of the party. Priest and druids were far easier to advance because if you played it right and upheld the tenets of your faith, you got major bonuses.
I don't remember XP bonuses giving any profession a faster advancement than other? In pure XP count most people not playing a spell-caster were topped out on all advancements and bored stupid waiting for the casters to get usuful.
I LOVE both versions, for me 1e was Gritty-Gritty and 2e was Gritty-Shiney (i.e. magic is FAR more common).
Still the sight of a buring Hedge Wizard in 2e does make life worth while.
S.
I'd suggest playing the 1E setting with 2E rules.
Combat is a bit tedious either way - you miss most of the time and the when you do hit you often don't do any damage.
Allow me to be the voice of gluttony and say:
Get it all!
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is incredibly taste-specific (ie you either like the setting/style or don't), but it is a great roleplaying game in any edition (yes even 3rd edition for all the doubting-thomases out there).
1E stuff is kind of hard to come by where I am. I already have the 2E core book and the 2E bestiary. I also have the 3E boxed set, so really I'm try to decide between those two.
As I mentioned above, I've been playing in a 3E game and I quite like the system. However, I find all the components and such that are involved in that version of the game get a little tedious/cumbersome- hence I was considering 2E instead.
|
|
I already have the 2E core book and the 2E bestiary. I also have the 3E boxed set, so really I'm try to decide between those two.
Question answered then. Play 2e!!!! Don't stress about 1e, leave that for another day when you accidentially fall across a copy of 1e in a 2nd hand book store. I challenge you to NOT have adventure ideas falling out of you nose after reading the first section in the Bestiary. Read the Minotaur entry - that sent me on a tail spin of ideas by making me think hard about my preconceptions of Minotaurs all being dumb-arses.
Drat, going to have to go re-read.
So again STRESS NOT - play 2e, don't even think about getting the numerous suppliments. I have them all, but only use the core + bestiary. You want fluff then pick up 2 or 3 edition ago Army Books for Warhammer Fantasy Battle - they are stupidly cheap and full of goodness. The Black Industries 2e WHRP sutff is more expensive.
Good luck and good witch hunting,
S.
PS: 1e setting is better however :)
I have played in 1e and have GM'd in 2e. I agree with most of the posters that 1e had stronger fluff, but 2e had stronger mechanics. To become a wizard in 1e, was sheer luck. You first had to roll academic and then you had a small percentage chance to become an apprentice. I also hated that crit table(I was always getting hit by the groin crit).
I did not find the combat in 2e that cumbersome, and in fact less cumbersome than a lot of systems. It was a lethal system, but players learned it was better, most of the time, to talk their way out of trouble, though trouble usually followed them.
One suggestion, if you run a 2e game, give the players 3 rolls on the career chart, and let them choose one. It gives them a better chance of playing a career they will like playing.
About 3e, I do not like the mechanics at all. It is a cumbersome and confusing mix of RPG and board game, they should have kept it a RPG along the lines of Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, Deathwatch, and soon to be out, Black Crusade. All of which, FFG have done an extremely good job with.
Well if they had keep it like those other games there would be no need for 3E because that's what 2E is already.
I have played in 1e and have GM'd in 2e. I agree with most of the posters that 1e had stronger fluff, but 2e had stronger mechanics. To become a wizard in 1e, was sheer luck. You first had to roll academic and then you had a small percentage chance to become an apprentice. I also hated that crit table(I was always getting hit by the groin crit).
I did not find the combat in 2e that cumbersome, and in fact less cumbersome than a lot of systems. It was a lethal system, but players learned it was better, most of the time, to talk their way out of trouble, though trouble usually followed them.
One suggestion, if you run a 2e game, give the players 3 rolls on the career chart, and let them choose one. It gives them a better chance of playing a career they will like playing.
About 3e, I do not like the mechanics at all. It is a cumbersome and confusing mix of RPG and board game, they should have kept it a RPG along the lines of Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, Deathwatch, and soon to be out, Black Crusade. All of which, FFG have done an extremely good job with.
|
|
Well if they had keep it like those other games there would be no need for 3E because that's what 2E is already.
Black Industries set the bar pretty darn high in 2e. Editing is very good overall also - something missing in many newer RPG's. Having said that the eidting in 1e WHRP is top notch too. In my opinion the bottom line is 1e presents a 'real world' members of your party will in a mechanics sense 'suck' compared to others. In 2e while this occurs it is far less of a gap. Choose the system based on what your players will be happy with. Again because you have 2e and the system is VERY good (as is 1e) why wouldn't you have a go?
2e gives players more of a chance (slightly) in combat against opponents due to the 'action' system, in 1e the Elven Assasin (A 4) runs up and guts you (unless you are a dwarf in plate) before you get to act on round one. That's 1e for you, accept that can happen in game and you're fine. As a previous poster said in WHRP (either edition) if you need a weapon (and your opponent could attack back) you have more than likely gone about something the wrong way :)
While much stronger in 'feel' the character advancement in 1e was too fast when it came to stat advances (+10%) and there was way to much reason to end up as a Mercenary Captain or an Assassin. Read Chris's comments at the back of the 2e WHRP book, he covers most of what he thought needed looked at, on the whole I agree with him. Pressure from Game Workshop to align 2e WHRP with the then current Warhammer Fantasy Battle setting was the only part of 2e WHRP I'm not so keen on.
Having said that, I do like the four types of Vampire in the 2e bestiary...
S.
As I understand it the 3E timeline is actually set before the 2E timeline.
Anyhow the game concept for the game I plan to run isn't exactly going to be a traditional warhammer game. The plan is to do more warhammer meets keep on the borderlands. I'm also using some material from Kingmaker and Call of Cthulhu's Dunwich as inspiration.
Well if they had keep it like those other games there would be no need for 3E because that's what 2E is already.
But that is the point, they had a solid RPG, and had more material that we were waiting for. For example, more race books. The Children of the Horned Rat was an excellent book. In fact, some of it I wished they incorporated in the Warhammer game, like the assassin adept. Wishful thinking, for I am a Skaven player. But I would of liked to see more books like a book of elves, and dwarves, ogres, etc., especially since I was GM'ing and had to make up classes for elves.
|
elvesMmmmmmm, artistic reditions of Dark Elf Sorceresses...
Damn Black Industries not conitinuing.
Actually reminds me of the trailer for the Dark Gods awful MMORPG Warhammer the reckoning <shudder> - the trailer was just, just, awesome!
In case you haven't seen it;
S.
MMMMM sooo much goodness in that video. But my personal favorite is the video for Mark of Choas.
Sigmar wills it!!!
They really need to do a full length fantasy movie now that they have done a 40k movie.
|
|
Priests and druids had to make a percentile roll to advance. Depending on how much you adhered to your faiths tenets, you got different modifiers. If you rolled high enough and had really good modifiers, you could actually skip a level and get everything for the level you skipped. I was the epitome of a druid of Taal. I went from a level one druid to a level three druid, and then went into level four with all the bells and whistles. But yeah, getting that first level XP to level up was a real pain in the ass. my first two careers didn't take up half as much time to level up as that first level of druid.
You sure this wasn't a house rule? I was reading both 1e and 2e last night (because they rock). The rule for Priest/Druid advancement involves getting all skills + 100 xp * level and then rolling on a table that may if all goes well get you a small rebate on XP (100 XP I believe), & a blessing (+10% to a skill or a spell it would seem). I'm reasonable sure it doesn't have a free level entry on the advancement table? Could you point me at the page number please. I would not rule out I missed a paragraph.
S.
|
|
1e
To get from say level 2 to 3 as a Druidic Priest would cost in XP (minimum):
All skills of level 2 = 500 XP (you do get a free one from your famalier)
2 x level spell = 400 XP
Roll on advance table = 300 XP
1200 XP to go from level 2 to 3, and assuming no DM bonus to the roll, a 35% chance of not leveling. Then level 3 spells are 600 XP each...
No freebies other than the skill granted by your famaliar.
S.
