Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 9065219" data-attributes="member: 6779310">Fromm where I sit...TOR 1E is vastly superior to 2E, primarily because of the strength of Hope. In 1E, you sacrifice hope for known success (that is, the roll is made, and you usually know by how much you failed, and hope adds a fixed amount by your attribute and favored/unfavored skill), so you know if spending hop will allow you to succeed. Procedurally, that's brilliant.TOR 2E puts hope BEFORE the roll, and it's just an extra die on the roll. The result is usually far less than in 1E, tho' the TN's are a wider range in practice,. But Hope is often wasted. My players absolutely hated it, having played 1e prior.TOR 2E includes songs in core.... but nerfs them, badly.TOR 1E songs are in the Rivendel sourcebook... but much more varied in effect. TOR 2E narrows the scope of the social mechanics; in 1E, it's not limited to just council-style; I found that having a town have a limited number of fails works great to keep PC's from retrying. Restricting it to formal councils and meetings is taking away some of the impetus to actually engage the adventures.As for either D&D flavor? No. They are not going to enforce the genre as well as either TOR edition. AIME was essentially a money grab; I've met few locally who liked it. I only bought the PM, couldn't follow the char gen, and noted that the travel system is better than 5E's, but not enough so as to be worth borrowing, let alone fighting the char gen.LotR isn't as much a cash grab; I've not looked at it, what I've seen leaves me unable to judge it fairly, so I can't recommend it, and when the TOR rules do enforce the genre...</blockquote>

Verification