Rundown: Tales of the Valiant Player's Guide
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 พ.ค. 2024
- Dave goes over the new Tales of the Valiant Player's Guide. Tales of the Valiant is a game system based on the D&D SRD, so it's quite similar, but offers an alternative to playing the Dungeons & Dragons game itself. It promises to "make spellcasting cooler" and provide more tactical options for fighters. Does it do that? Dave shares his take on this, along with other details about this new system.
Please consider our Patreon for Game Talk Network (there's an RPG Rundown support tier):
/ gametalknetwork
Join our Discord server:
/ discord
And make sure to check out GTN's other tabletop gaming channels:
The Board Game Rundown: / @boardgamerundown
The Miniatures Rundown: / @miniaturesrundown
The Lorcana Rundown: / @lorcanarundown-ht6sy - เกม
![คุณอาเรียโต๊ะข้างๆ พูดรัสเซียหวานใส่ซะหัวใจจะวาย ตอนที่ 2 [ซับไทย] 【Ani-One Thailand】](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kbbfYakMY8k/mqdefault.jpg)
![แขกคนแรกร้านแจ๊ส [ซี - เอมมี่] | iJazzKhunJang](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XP6C9kulFfc/mqdefault.jpg)
All those little changes really add up when you actually play.
That’s fair
I backed ToV for the Players Guide, Monster Vault, and GMG...
While the Players Guide didn't go as far as I would have liked, what it does do is a series of Quality of Life updates that...yeah, can be missed if your not looking for them specifically. For example, practically everyone gets a 2/Multiattack with a weapon now...and thats pretty kool. As far as I can tell, there's still restrictions on the types of attacks made, and the action economy still seems very 5E, rather then Pathfinder 2e; but thats minor.
I think in changes I noticed with classes so far, is that there's more influence from 3.5/Pathfinder then 5E... certain wording for Barbarians, Fighters, and the like have had how they read changed slightly, so that more can be gained out of them. Each level also provides something now, too, rather then there being gaps in classes at some levels... another huge QoL improvement.
...for me, the biggest is the Mechanist/Artificer... Its kept certain 5E changes, but it feels like alot of the class was designed behind the 3.5 Eberron version, With Augements feeling more like the classic Infusions, and being able to do more with them. Also, big bonus, There's no limit on using Augments, just how many active Augments you can have... This, in the hands of a creative Artificer-player, could lead to ALOT of shenanigans. But, its also in the style of the class too, that the Mechanist Subclasses also harken back to the Eberron Prestige Classes, which I really appreciate, too.
That was one of my biggest annoyances with 5E Artificers... all the other classes got Subclasses based on old Prestige Classes; but the Artificer got Subclasses based on Build-types.
From my takeaway of the Mechanist Subclasses so far, I would call their subclasses as being closer to the Cannith Wand Adept PrC, and somewhat a Renegade Mastermaker PrC... not 100%, but its better then WotC's null-attempt. The Mechanist also *Feels* like its a "combat mechanic", a class for someone who wants to be analysing, understanding, and making magic items...
Granted, I dont think they went far enough for my liking...
I wish they went full "Turbo" on "Make it a proper simplified 3.5 experiance"; because I feel sometimes thats what 5E wanted to do, but they brought too much 4E baggage with them (WotC, not KP)... so I wish KP had pushed more into that. But, for a "First Edition", its not bad...
Thanks for the perspective on the nuances! And yeah, I think it seems like a really solid system. They probably felt they needed to be conservative with the first edition in order to have enough appeal on launch for it to succeed. If they get to a second edition and really start to make it their own, that would be interesting.
I ran a one-shot in the system, one thing that was very different gameplay wise is that everyone had bonus actions they could pull off; spells, weapon actions, martial actions, class and lineage features all gave access to new bonus actions and even new reactions. The combat was interesting and fairly engaging, with few if any "I attacked and missed so I sit and wait to get hit" moments. The real star tho was that one character was a wild/chaos magic sorcerer and the wild magic surges are so much more fun and frequent.
Interesting! I'm considering running a one-shot to get a better feel and do a follow-up video, so this is good to know.
Just wanted to pass on some advice from another TH-camr who had this same issue... those popping sounds are called "plosives", and you can help cut down on them by putting your mic off center, so it's not right in front of your mouth, or by adding a "pop filter". It will add a lot to your audio quality.
Hey you may need to look into Martial Actions, and also KP reorganization of some long spells into Rituals makes it easier for casters..
Thanks, I'll take a closer look at those elements. Maybe a follow-up video will be in order! I'm also planning a play-through to put it on its legs and see what it does.
The fact it is so much like 5e is what turns me off ToV. They didnt expect Hasbto to throw the 5e SRD into CC so now they are stuck with this 5e clone.
It may not have flashy big changes but there are many smaller changes than make it feel different enough from 5e to deserve being it’s own game. I'm tired of seeing all those people call it a 5e clone when they haven't even read the book.
I haven't played 5e but I took a quick look at it when my FLGS got it in, and it read like 5e with some tweaks, basically if you wanted to stay with a 5e type game (rather than say OSR) but didn't want to give WOTC money due to the OGL fiasco and them crapping on the original creators.
I have received bad comments from fans for pointing out a flaw in this Luck Mechanic design. This mechanic is designed to be managed without the GM's intervention, freeing him up to focus on other things. Fine. Let's take a player with a Luck pool of 4. If the GM rewards this player for good roleplay (+1 Luck), let's say for the description of a combat maneuver, just before a roll, and immediately afterwards his player character misses his attack (+1 Luck), the player loses ALL his Luck points, must roll his meager d4, for what is basically a beautiful roleplay moment. In this case, and it will happen, although rarely, the design would leave a bitter taste in the mouth. Good design in intention but lacking in refinement, in my opinion.
I believe the intention is for this to motivate players to actually spend the luck points, rather than forget they are there and thus accidentally “hoard” them. Just in my own personal experience, the majority of players are, for some reason, very reluctant to use, e.g., Inspiration in D&D, even though it would benefit them. I think you have a point about a possible feels-bad, but, if the players are being encouraged to spend luck points, this won’t happen much because they won’t often hit the limit.
Hasbro raises price of handbooks to 60$ --> outrage.
Kobold Press joinds the bandwagon and sells handbooks at 60$ --> perfectly fine.
It's not exactly correct to say that ToV is "tied to WotC".
It uses the 5.1 SRD, but as the 5.1 SRD is under a creative common 4.0 license, it's no longer owned by WotC , it's not owned by anyone as long as you use the CC4.0 license.
If you did use the 5.1 OGL license (I don't know anyone who would), WotC could theaoretically change that at anytime. That's not true of the 5.1 SRD CC4.0
Fair points!
I admit I was hoping for some mechanics that created a different feel than 5e. The spell classifications are a start, but from this review, it is too little.
Yeah the biggest issue is how much of it feels like DnD5E and holding onto its vestigial issues, and little bitties of PF2E wording and adjusting. Not enough is really streamlined, simplified, or solved. Rather, additional things are slapped on without making them more compelling to new players or those taking more modern games.
It *feels* crunchier by how much it focuses on being 5E, but again with extra stuff slapped on, and its focus on granular design rather than significant sweeping design twists.
That’s how I’ve felt about this project from the get-go. I can understand as a company why KP would want to distance themselves from D&D, but does it offer me anything substantially different as a player?
Get yourself a pop filter my guy
Some stuff i heard, i distinctly dont like. Luck seems underwhelming, honestly. Frequently a +1 or +2 is irrelevant. Dread in the English language has a definition and it is not this, making me a but annoyed, and "scar a creature for minutes" .... really? How do you SCAR a creature psychologically for MINUTES? Again, words have meanings, and if you are writing a book you should learn them. That said, if some of the problems with 5e that are actual problems get fixed, i will add it to my shelf, and stuff i dont like be damned, since it will be a thoroughly playable game. 5e breaks on us constantly.