Dragon Age RPG - General Discussion

[Anublet90]

Didn't see one of these, so why not make one?

For starters, I was wondering how this system is for a newbie? I've spoken with some friends, and a few are definitely interested in starting table-top RP. The scene as a whole seems a bit intimidating, so we were thinking something a bit more rules-light. We're all fans of the Dragon Age games, and I thought a familiar setting would be good for our initiation.

Any ideas, suggestions or thoughts on the matter?

[Yora]

I have not played or run it, but compared to all the other games I know, it seems really quite simple and neat, and should probably be easy to run and learn. I'd compare it to AD&D 1st Edition or probably even earlier D&D edition, with the difference that the rules are actually well explained and not that hard to understand.
I would even say that for a completely new group, it's the game I'd recomment the most.

Since the rules are quite lightweight, a GM often has to just throw something at the PC and see how it turns out. There's not much guidelines to how much player characters can handle. But if you start out easy and slowly increase the strength and frequency of enemies, it should not be too hard to get a good idea of how strong the PCs really are.
Games like these have a very different approach than for example Pathfinder or D&D 4th Edition, and it'd probably be quite a change to people acustomed to these games. It's more along the lines of Old School RPGs, where combat is not the main focus of playing the game, but something that is more infrequent and exist to enhance the rest of the game.
The combat rules are quite simple, there isn't a huge variety in monsters (though you can quite easily make your own new ones, once you're familiar with the game), and there are not many cool special abilities on either side. Instead it's up to the GM to place fights in interesting locations, and it's up to the players to use the environment to their advantage. You usually don't just walk up to the enemy and start hitting each other with swords until one or the other falls over dead. But mostly, there are no hard rules for such things and the GM simply decides what happens or what ability the characters should roll to see if they are successful.

I very much recommend the game, but it's one best suited for playing stories in which the PCs interact with other people, investigate and explore, with fighting breaking out inbetween. It's not made for lots of large scale battles in a row. It probably would get quite boring pretty quickly if played like that.

[shadow_archmagi]

This is actually the first I've heard of a dragon age RPG. I'm kinda surprised; I'd assumed a DA-RPG would play a lot like 4th edition; lots of AoEs and status effects and stuff to encourage stuff like the videogame's "And now Allistar uses Shield Push, which knocks him over by the bad dude so I can catch them both with Morrigan's Spiderface Barrage!" type tactics.

[Thrawn4]

I'd assumed a DA-RPG would play a lot like the videogame's "And now Allistar uses Shield Push type tactics.

+1

On another note, I think it is possible to have less fighting and more interaction with every system, even if 4th edition might be combat heavy (which it is, apparentyl).

[Pikkle]

It's been a little while since I've played but it's a really dynamic light system. You'll cheer and shout when rolling a double and using the action points from your dragon dice.

[Darth_Versity]

My group got the system as soon as it was released and we have all enjoyed it so far. It is an excellent game for people new to tabletop rpgs as the rules are fairly simple and easy to use and character creation has very few choices and relies mostly on random rolls. For experienced groups this is actually quite annoying and the second set of books offers a 'point buy' option, but for new players fantastic.

The biggest issue is balancing any fights to be challenging but not deadly. I'd recommend keeping enemy units rather weak to begin with and start to beef them up once you have some experience with the system. A good idea is to keep objectives in a combat rather hordes of enemies. I once had a burning carriage with people inside, a group of darkspawn dragging off some civilians and another group fighting the PCs. None of them were difficult challenges, but together they presented a problem because the group couldn't save everyone.

Personally it's my favourite system alongside Star Wars Saga edition. Both have their flaws, but remain very easy and very fast games.

[Knaight]

It's decent. It's very combat focused, but works within that niche. The dragon die mechanic is pretty fun, so there's that. On the other hand, the classes and everything attached to them feel really, really generic - this isn't a bad thing, but it does make it less interesting.

[Yora]

I wouldn't necessarily call it combat focused. As a combat focused game, it would actually very bland and get boring soon.
Instead, it's a game that has rules only for things that really need it and doesn't bother with minigames for things thay the GM can easily judge and decide by himself.

[Knaight]

Instead, it's a game that has rules only for things that really need it and doesn't bother with minigames for things thay the GM can easily judge and decide by himself.

Things like the spell list have an obvious combat bent. Equipment lists have an obvious combat bent. So on and so forth. It's not about "minigames", as there are numerous very light systems that really don't have them but are obviously not combat focused. It's more about how everything combat receives a high level of detail and attention, all of the classes are combat focused (there are no classes that are made such that fighting is just something that they don't really do), etc.

[T.G. Oskar]

Yay, still not 2 weeks! Anyways...

The DA RPG is pretty good, though a bit hard to understand if you're used to other gaming systems. A friend of mine did the start of one campaign (from level 1, even!), and some stuff confused us. While the basics of combat are pretty simple (1 major action and 1 minor action, or 2 minor actions), there were some attempts to do things in the system that weren't too clear (being used to the d20 System, the rules for charging were a bit confusing) or that simply weren't there (what's the rules on a shield bash?).

While the stunts are nice, I feel that the Mage is just too powerful. Not only does it has the Arcane Lance it can do at-will and the spells it can do with MP, but it ALSO has stunts, and it has a plethora of stunts per school of magic, while the Warrior and the Rogue are limited to a set of combat stunts. There's no techniques to execute, which is sad since while some of the techniques could be done with Stunts and Talents (say, choosing the Two-Weapon Fighting talent and using the Lightning Attack stunt to attack with two weapons during one Major Action), there's others where some techniques could have been appreciated (once again, using shields in combat: the Weapon and Shield line simply allows you to use a shield appropriately, instead of letting you use it in combat.

That's another of my irks with the system: the talents feel a bit restrictive, since you're limited to three degrees. Some of the talents' starting (or Novice degree) abilities are somewhat disappointing: I can add my full Shield bonus to Defense? Gain a +1 to attack or +1 to Defense when wielding two weapons, but not the ability to attack with both from the very beginning? The ability to attack from 2 yards away when wielding a polearm? The first and the third are things I would expect a Warrior to know from the very beginning; meanwhile, Mages get to do cool stuff when they learn the talents related to the schools of Magic. The problem is that, for the moment, Talents only reach to Master degree, so you're allowed to take only up to 3 abilities from one tree.

Same goes for Specializations. You're allowed to only ONE specialization (or two, but I'm not sure if the developers changed that from the set 3 playtest), and it follows the same guidelines, which can be a hassle as some abilities are lost (e.g. the Templar's Holy Smite, which doesn't exist anywhere in the game when in both DA:O and DA II they are stand-outs of the Templar's abilities) and others never reach to be truly strong (the Bard's songs, for example: Song of Valor works more like Song of Courage and grants only a piddling bonus, compared to what it offers in DA:O), while others (*grumblegrumbleBloodMagegrumblegrumble*) provide strong boosts.

Despite those troubles with mechanics (particularly since the GM and I are fans of the Warrior class, and the other player is a natural Rogue; the GM does like Blood Mages, though, due to his DA II gameplay), the game can be pretty interesting. It's not that rigid in terms of out-of-combat mechanics, so there's a lot of leverage for doing crazy awesome stuff (like, say, using the Brewing skill to create grog out of stale bread, straw and water; did I mention the GM and I are Chemical Engineering students?), yet the story from the game works really well to help you envision the world, something that other games don't have the advantage to pull off. The character creation system lets you create a character that, on first instance, it feels quite strong (though it does fall into Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards sadly, IMO), but the way the progression goes feels pretty tight, so there's a semblance of balance looming around (though, in reality, Rogue <= Warrior < Mage; everyone learns talents and specialization talents at the same level, so the Rogue gets nothing unique to them, the Warrior learns how to fight with new weapon groups, and the Mage...gets new spells every two levels, and more than the Warrior gets weapon groups or the other two classes gain stunt bonuses). The stunt mechanics are great, since the chance of rolling doubles on a 3d6 is fairly high, and they are a welcome addition since it adds some spice to the usual "I attack the opponent with my weapon", but it could have been a bit better IMO with Warriors and Rogues getting some techniques of their own or something to complement the spell progression of Mages.

So yeah: aside from my (ahem) little quibble with Mages, I still recommend the system. Strangely enough, it works well, and you feel the battles can be challenging but not impossible, while the out-of-combat experience allows (and invites, given how the parent game's companion chatter is a standard to adhere into) crazy concepts. That's one great thing that it draws from other roleplay-heavy systems: goals and ties, which help you flesh your character a bit more and which evolve during play. Whether something normal as a vanilla Fighter, a Western RPG expy, a Japanese RPG expy or something as insane as a Templar cadet born from a tavern-keeper's family with a goal to gather every single alcoholic drink in a wineskin and return to Lothering with a maleficar even if they're all the way to Antiva, there's little that really prevents you from doing so, even if you're mechanically inclined and not story-inclined.

[MeeposFire]

+1

On another note, I think it is possible to have less fighting and more interaction with every system, even if 4th edition might be combat heavy (which it is, apparentyl).

What you will find is that any system can be as fighting centric as you want it to be depending on how you decide to play it. I have done entire nights where there was little to no combat in 4e and the players were enthralled. You just need to make things interesting in other ways which thakfully with my experience from early D&D I can do. Oddly you will find many people saying that 3e and 4e are more combat centric than older D&D but what is funny is that older D&D will actually have far less rules for out of combat situations. What it did have was a lot of suggestions and many of them were not built on actual mechanics. Due to that most of that advice transfers over to any game that does not use a set mechanic to do out of combat actions.

Some people actually prefer the times in older D&D when they did not have even non weapon proficiencies since that gave them ultimate flexibility in role playing potential.

It sounds like this is happening in this game as well from the comments. Some are feeling that it handles out of combat well but others say it barely has anything at all for it. I wonder is the lack of mechanics for out of combat stuff the cause of some thinking it handles it so well? Some people do find that less is more.

[Lord Raziere]

I like it, but what I really want is more fluff on Thedas in general. a light system is good. a light setting however needs expanding.

like, what is it really like in Orlais? or Nevarra? or the Anderfells? is there more history? what is the Tevinter Imperium like? what are the rules for playing a Tevinter Mage? is there anything across the sea I should know about? what about more information on female Tal'vashoth? how many sealed gods that could cause the Blight are there anyways? what is it like in Weisshaupt Fortress? is this really all the nations we have?

and so on and so forth. there are just so many questions that need answering.....

[Beleriphon]

and so on and so forth. there are just so many questions that need answering.....

For that, you'll have to play the video games. The simple answer is that the fluff is created entirely by Bioware and presented through the games. Dragon Age: Inquisition sould have some answers about Orlais, and almost definitely about Tevinter. Beyond that there quite frankly isn't any information beyond what you can find in the games, or maybe any incidental tie-in novels.

[cloudjsh7]

*hands two cents*

TL;DR

This system is absolutely incredible.
Not only does it capture the feel of the Dragon Age universe, the mechanics themselves are great.
The simple, and streamlined class system is straightforward and still leaves room for some customization. Not only that but all three classes are well balanced in my opinion.
The 3d6 bell curve Target Number philosophy is fantastic and rids a player from having "bad games" due to a constant stream of bad die rolls. And the stunt system is fabulous and leaves every single combat extremely dynamic without bogging down the millions of rules that older d20 games are plagued with. Teaching new players is fun (after 8+ years of D&D, that's saying a lot. Teaching new players, as in new to tabletop gaming for the first time ever, is a hellish nightmare) and running a game is smooth for new GMs.
The core system somehow manages to be dressed heavily in story-inspired focuses and yet achieves that "taken straight from the game" feel. If you've played any of the titles, there's this great satisfactory feeling that your character is just how you made it in any of the games. An ASTOUNDING problem I see with all of these video game-to-tabletop games is that people make the grave mistake of converting the game. I've seen Mass Effect write-ups, Zelda write-ups, and so many others. I was on the design team for PTU (Pokemon Tabletop United, back then it was Pokemon Tabletop Adventures) and the biggest mistake is that, seeing as video games are built around formulas, people simply take out all of the player/controller based variables and replace them with die rolls. The issue with that is that in videogames, there is a vast amount of formulas that the computer handles in a millisecond. Those same formulas (when respectively replaced with die rolls) can take 10-20 minutes for a single player turn. And then there's the bookkeeping. God, the bookkeeping. Again, the biggest issue is that PTU was a conversion of a video game.

Where Dragon Age shines is that the developers were sharp and rather than converting the video game, they properly translated it to a pen and paper format yet still kept the feel, essence, and the spirit of the video game wholly intact.

Overall, I give the system a well-earned an extremely well deserved 5/5.

[Chambers]

I'm a fan of the Dragon Age RPG though there's no one local that really wants to play it. I think it's a great rules lite system and have been tinkering with it for my own personal amusement since it came out.

I think some aspects of the character advancement system could use an overhaul. As Oskar mentioned some of the fighting Talents seem like they should just be basic abilities. What I'd really like is an expansion of the spellcasting system, streamlining how spells are cast and resisted. I've done some work on this for my own hack of the system but it's not OGL so I can't post it.

I really hope they publish an SRD for the system when they release Set 3 and the Core Rulebook, but I haven't found much information about what changes (if any) the Core Rulebook will entail.

[Morty]

Yay, still not 2 weeks! Anyways...

The DA RPG is pretty good, though a bit hard to understand if you're used to other gaming systems. A friend of mine did the start of one campaign (from level 1, even!), and some stuff confused us. While the basics of combat are pretty simple (1 major action and 1 minor action, or 2 minor actions), there were some attempts to do things in the system that weren't too clear (being used to the d20 System, the rules for charging were a bit confusing) or that simply weren't there (what's the rules on a shield bash?).

While the stunts are nice, I feel that the Mage is just too powerful. Not only does it has the Arcane Lance it can do at-will and the spells it can do with MP, but it ALSO has stunts, and it has a plethora of stunts per school of magic, while the Warrior and the Rogue are limited to a set of combat stunts. There's no techniques to execute, which is sad since while some of the techniques could be done with Stunts and Talents (say, choosing the Two-Weapon Fighting talent and using the Lightning Attack stunt to attack with two weapons during one Major Action), there's others where some techniques could have been appreciated (once again, using shields in combat: the Weapon and Shield line simply allows you to use a shield appropriately, instead of letting you use it in combat.

That's another of my irks with the system: the talents feel a bit restrictive, since you're limited to three degrees. Some of the talents' starting (or Novice degree) abilities are somewhat disappointing: I can add my full Shield bonus to Defense? Gain a +1 to attack or +1 to Defense when wielding two weapons, but not the ability to attack with both from the very beginning? The ability to attack from 2 yards away when wielding a polearm? The first and the third are things I would expect a Warrior to know from the very beginning; meanwhile, Mages get to do cool stuff when they learn the talents related to the schools of Magic. The problem is that, for the moment, Talents only reach to Master degree, so you're allowed to take only up to 3 abilities from one tree.

Same goes for Specializations. You're allowed to only ONE specialization (or two, but I'm not sure if the developers changed that from the set 3 playtest), and it follows the same guidelines, which can be a hassle as some abilities are lost (e.g. the Templar's Holy Smite, which doesn't exist anywhere in the game when in both DA:O and DA II they are stand-outs of the Templar's abilities) and others never reach to be truly strong (the Bard's songs, for example: Song of Valor works more like Song of Courage and grants only a piddling bonus, compared to what it offers in DA:O), while others (*grumblegrumbleBloodMagegrumblegrumble*) provide strong boosts.

Despite those troubles with mechanics (particularly since the GM and I are fans of the Warrior class, and the other player is a natural Rogue; the GM does like Blood Mages, though, due to his DA II gameplay), the game can be pretty interesting. It's not that rigid in terms of out-of-combat mechanics, so there's a lot of leverage for doing crazy awesome stuff (like, say, using the Brewing skill to create grog out of stale bread, straw and water; did I mention the GM and I are Chemical Engineering students?), yet the story from the game works really well to help you envision the world, something that other games don't have the advantage to pull off. The character creation system lets you create a character that, on first instance, it feels quite strong (though it does fall into Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards sadly, IMO), but the way the progression goes feels pretty tight, so there's a semblance of balance looming around (though, in reality, Rogue <= Warrior < Mage; everyone learns talents and specialization talents at the same level, so the Rogue gets nothing unique to them, the Warrior learns how to fight with new weapon groups, and the Mage...gets new spells every two levels, and more than the Warrior gets weapon groups or the other two classes gain stunt bonuses). The stunt mechanics are great, since the chance of rolling doubles on a 3d6 is fairly high, and they are a welcome addition since it adds some spice to the usual "I attack the opponent with my weapon", but it could have been a bit better IMO with Warriors and Rogues getting some techniques of their own or something to complement the spell progression of Mages.

So yeah: aside from my (ahem) little quibble with Mages, I still recommend the system. Strangely enough, it works well, and you feel the battles can be challenging but not impossible, while the out-of-combat experience allows (and invites, given how the parent game's companion chatter is a standard to adhere into) crazy concepts. That's one great thing that it draws from other roleplay-heavy systems: goals and ties, which help you flesh your character a bit more and which evolve during play. Whether something normal as a vanilla Fighter, a Western RPG expy, a Japanese RPG expy or something as insane as a Templar cadet born from a tavern-keeper's family with a goal to gather every single alcoholic drink in a wineskin and return to Lothering with a maleficar even if they're all the way to Antiva, there's little that really prevents you from doing so, even if you're mechanically inclined and not story-inclined.

From what you're saying, the system falls into the unfortunate yet common trap of requiring characters to purchase abilities they really should have access to by the virtue of their profession and that aren't all that exciting in the first place.

[Chambers]

From what you're saying, the system falls into the unfortunate yet common trap of requiring characters to purchase abilities they really should have access to by the virtue of their profession and that aren't all that exciting in the first place.

I don't think that's accurate as a broad generalization. Certainly some of the Talents should be reworked (Musical Instruments, etc), but I think the system as a whole works.

[Yora]

I really hope they publish an SRD for the system when they release Set 3 and the Core Rulebook, but I haven't found much information about what changes (if any) the Core Rulebook will entail.

Aparently Set 3 is finally out. About time. It's no Duke Nukem, but coming close.

[Chambers]

::checks e-mail::

Nope, no notice that the pre-order had begun. Pretty sure I had signed up for that. Thanks for the link though!

[Yora]

Oh, it's preorder. Didn't know they do that for pdfs.

[Elderand]

Set 3 is out and has been for a week or so.

Personaly I quite like dragon age as a system.

It's simpler than dnd, mage while being powerful are not so powerful they make everyone else irrelevant.
There isn't a 5 minutes adventuring day since regaining HP is relatively easy and mages can regain MP whitout needing a full 8 hour rest. Enough to see everyone carry on and soldier through the adventure.

The use of 3d6 give a nice bell curve that help make character consistant in what they can do.

[Knaight]

It's a reasonably solid system, if pretty restricted. The simplicity comes at a cost to options, the classes are fairly locked in, etc. Provided that everyone wants to play more archetypical characters in a fairly combat focused game, it works great. If that's not the case, and you have something like people wanting to play merchants and craftspeople in a game where combat is a minor focus at most, it will break down pretty badly.

Getting away from the generalities: I really like the stunt system, and generally consider the dragon die mechanic pretty excellent - to the point where I'm seriously considering doing my best to steal it for other games. Beyond that it's a pretty typical well made fantasy system. These are a dime a dozen, and there's plenty of competition in the reasonably rules light niche, but if you're going for more archetypical characters, like class systems, and favor more combat based games Dragon Age is a good choice.

[Chambers]

It's a reasonably solid system, if pretty restricted. The simplicity comes at a cost to options, the classes are fairly locked in, etc. Provided that everyone wants to play more archetypical characters in a fairly combat focused game, it works great. If that's not the case, and you have something like people wanting to play merchants and craftspeople in a game where combat is a minor focus at most, it will break down pretty badly.

One of the things about the system that appeals to me is how easy it is to expand the options available in the game. The core mechanic for customization are Talents and it's pretty easy to make your own Talents for whatever you want to add to the game. You could have a Berserker Rage Talent, a Sniping Talent, more Gish options, etc. I frame Dragon Age by thinking of it as a game developed around some of the alternate rules in Unearthed Arcana, specifically the Generic classes and 3d6 rolling. It's D&D Lite in the sense that it presents the basics for the game and you can dial up the complexity to suit table variation.

If a group wants to play Craftspeople & Merchants they're probably better off with a different system, one not based on the traditional fantasy RPG chassis (D&D and it's variants).

Getting away from the generalities: I really like the stunt system, and generally consider the dragon die mechanic pretty excellent - to the point where I'm seriously considering doing my best to steal it for other games. Beyond that it's a pretty typical well made fantasy system. These are a dime a dozen, and there's plenty of competition in the reasonably rules light niche, but if you're going for more archetypical characters, like class systems, and favor more combat based games Dragon Age is a good choice.

This reads like a backhanded compliment. There certainly are a lot of Fantasy RPG's in the style of D&D, some more effective than others, but I think some of the things you mentioned (stunts, dragon die) are what set this one a step above the others. ::shrug::

In other news, Green Ronin is having RPG Designer Tryouts. Basically choose your preferred system (including Dragon Age) and design and submit a monster.

[Knaight]

This reads like a backhanded compliment. There certainly are a lot of Fantasy RPG's in the style of D&D, some more effective than others, but I think some of the things you mentioned (stunts, dragon die) are what set this one a step above the others. ::shrug::

That's pretty much my point. Take those out*, and you've got something very, very standard. Those two are the innovative mechanics, and I personally like them enough for Dragon Age to be pretty high on my list of preferred fantasy RPGs - and this is from someone who generally dislikes class systems. There are also several games that are still above it.

Essentially my point is that Dragon Age is fundamentally one of a number of rules light fantasy systems. It's big advantages are the Dragon die and Stunt system, both of which are actually fairly innovative. I'd recommend it over the various other systems in the same niche if you like class based systems, archetypical characters, and combat. Otherwise, I'd generally recommend something else.

*Hence the "Beyond that" bit.

[dr.cello]

I've been running this for one or two years now. (Two campaigns: one is on hiatus because I wanted to wait for Inquisition to come out, the other is still going on.) As a DM I am very improvisational and I use combat sparingly--sometimes we go several sessions without seeing a combat encounter. So I think it's safe to say that this need not be a combat-heavy system.

As far as I've concerned, the system is more or less perfect for my style. It's easy to improvise and easy to learn. And it's flexible: most of the problems I have with the system are easily solved with a few house rules. (I have two major ones, both of which are mostly just to encourage broader character design, and a few minor tweaks.) Custom stunts make for memorable encounters, and it's fairly easy to give out bonus talents and focuses without worrying that you'll bring the whole system crashing down around you.

Thedas is probably my favorite fantasy setting: it feels like a living world, and not just a campaign setting filed with excuses to have adventures. I love the way it handles magic and politics. (The magic, incidentally, is especially nice for a DM who likes to improvise. D&D is full of magic which can circumvent plot points; Dragon Age magic is generally unable to do so.)

[Psyren]

I've played it and we had a blast. It's a bit rules light for my tastes but it's definitely easy to get into. Plus all you need are d6s so it's easy to add more players.

I agree with whoever said there's not a lot of variety - but the complete edition with all the expansions and "PrCs" is dropping soon, so you can do stuff like have a mage who is a keeper's First, or have a Templar or play as a Qunari etc. I have a feeling they're going to coincide that combined release with DAI.

Anyway - it's solid, a great introduction to tabletop for fans of the video games (or video games in general) and does a good job of translating Thedas to the realm of dice. Overall a good job by Green Ronin, and they know their stuff.

Here is Wil Wheaton taking it on in Tabletop.

[Chambers]

Set 3 is at the distribution warehouse.

I can confirm that the product has been received by the warehouse but I have been holding off saying anything until the warehouse guys can tell me how long it's going to take to stage out the unusually large number of pre-orders. Because it's a limited item a lot more people than usual placed pre-orders and I'm being VERY strict with them about making sure these get processed correctly and in a timely manner. I'm pressing them for no delays, no misships, no damages since we aren't going to have a backstock of items to pull from to "fix" anything that gets screwed up. I knew if I said anything about Set 3 being in the warehouse people would start getting anxious about deliveries right away and I'd rather have something firm to say up front than spend the time reassuring people one by one in forum posts and emails. I'm strange that way.

So yeah, the cat is out of the bag. The boxes are in the warehouse. I will tell you more as soon as I have more to tell I promise!

I'm a little disappointed in the lack of communication from Green Ronin regarding the status of the Pre-Orders. A short e-mail talking about the delays and/or progress would have been nice. Something as simple as "Here's a link to a thread on our forum where we'll post updates." would have fine.

[Yora]

Still don't believe it until someone says the package got delivered or the box was seen in a store.

[Chambers]

Still don't believe it until someone says the package got delivered or the box was seen in a store.

The package got delivered! I received my Box Set in the mail today. I didn't have time to do a thorough read through but I glanced at it. Saw a few new specializations, new spells, some talents and focuses and the Mass Combat rules. That should be interesting to read later.