Search results

That's not how math works. If: The sales for first month of D&D2024 > the sale of the first two years of D&D5e And: The sale for the lifetime of D&D5e > the sale for the lifetime of every previous edition You can't conclude that: The sales for first month of D&D2024 > the sale for the...

Of course. The rulebook will nominally be compatible with 4e but will need a conversion document to aid that to some extent (as they have already signaled). However, there will be a hurdle of using 4e books with the new ruleset, which will inevitably increase as time goes on and C7 rolls out new...

Well, you are in luck then. C7's release schedule seems to be directed specifically for your tastes :) And if 5e doesn't work for you, there is always 6e.

If not, there is always 2e. I mean if its your favourite, then stick with it. It is still a great RPG.

My guess is that there will be significant changes. Simple platitudes of backwards compatibility intended to calm existing customers are always made at this point but rarely prove to be all that accurate.

Agree, it wouldn't make for a good generic Cosmere RPG system. I think that says as much about the Cosmere concept than the ruleset though.

The Mistborn Adventure Game was amazing. I loved how it modelled the books as well as its deep coverage of all the magic systems in the setting.

Obviously, you should order the Elf sourcebook. :)

Alacrast was the setting in SW1.0. It has since been replaced in SW2.0 and 2.5. SW2.5 is a solid and flexible fantasy RPG. I would play it over the likes of 5e, Daggerheart and other modern D&D fantasy equivalents. It won't cover Alacrast as said, as SW2.5 has its own setting, which is also...

And Legends of Crystania.

The fact that one book is called Character Rulebook and the other the GM's Guide bothers me more than it should :D It feels like changing from past to present tense midsentence. I prefer Player and GM or Character and Setting.

Despite seeming similarities, they are actually two different systems. Goblinslayer was heavily inspired by Sword World, as most Japanese RPGs are.

Who would think that Hobbits could challenge Mordor, destroy the One Ring, and become captains of Gondor and Rohan? :cool:

Starter Sets are usually loss leading products for exactly that reason. This has been the case with The One Ring for 10 years now. The 5e adaptation is pretty significant and well thought out (though I find The One Ring to be my preferred version), so maybe they didn't want to make it seem like...

They are the same in terms of adventure structure, though the stats for NPCs and rules for combat are the 5e versions.

The 5e version is a significant adaptation of the D&D5e system. I am not sure what you mean by dialing up combat though.

That’s not what I said though. I was only comparing them to classes in that you can stick with them and advance rather than having to career hop like in 1e and 2e, which was the what the poster who I quoted said they didn’t like. You don’t seem to disagree with that statement, and are instead...

Like classes, careers in OW are designed so you can stay in them and advance, rather than having to go through the career paths of 1e and 2e.

Not sure what you are disagreeing with as nothing in post appears to be addressing what I was saying in mine. Perhaps you were thinking of another post and responded to mine by accident or simply reading something in that’s not there.

I love WFRP1e but the move to a D10 for damage did fix the naked dwarf syndrome, so that was an improvement. The answer is that GW want people to buy new minis for Old World rather than reuse WFB ones. So the Old World has a number of traditional WFB factions removed including Skaven. The OW...