Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheSword" data-source="post: 9725059" data-attributes="member: 6879661">Ok that makes sense. I couldn’t disagree more with you, but you’re clear about your reasons.For me advancement is extremely straightforward. You advance anything on your character sheet a point at a time and if it’s not in your career it costs double and requires a trainer. I don’t now how an advancement system can be simpler than that. Pathfinder’s multitude of feat trees on the other hand is far more complicated and requires much more research in comparison.In terms of layout, it goes: character creation; careers; skills and talents; combat; DM stuff; religion; magic; world building; equipment and bestiary. It’s a rulebook that follows a pretty standard template of all single book rules including Pathfinder. Perhaps with the exception that equipment is seen as a continuation of world building seems a pretty reasonable and minor thing.I don’t know what you mean by group advantage being badly implemented. I find it delightful and it adds a level of team work and cooperation that I don’t see in other games. I’ve taught three groups WFRP 4e (one group of non-gamers) and they all picked it up easier because it’s a system that relies less on gimmicks/powers and more on representing what characters want to do.I don’t get the badly organized text criticism. I think the core book well deserved its gold ENnie for best writing.</blockquote>