Is Kobold Press' 5e TTRPG everything we hoped for? - Tales of the Valiant 1st Impressions

[@Hyodorio]

Honestly, I have 5e with my own tweaks and my party prefers it over what we've seen from Tales of the Valiant, so if we want to scratch that 5e itch, we have our home. If we want to explore something else we will go further away from the 5e sphere. I'm honestly excited to actually play a Powered by the Apocalypse system soon, and also got a Tales from the Loop game building up. As you said, at the end of the day, this is a 5e product.

[@lordmars2387]

I spent a bit of time working on my own system. This reshuffle/rebalancing seems rather limited. Long term 5E players want the system but with greater depth and the broken parts fixed.

[@charminggamer4716]

I've had mixed feelings. Personally I'd rather just see something new. I feel like it's more of a restriction to try and keep it backwards compatible. I'd rather see what new ideas can be made to advance the game. That's why I'm excited to see what Critical roles Dagger Heart ends up being.

[@anthonyambrose7830]

Have they announced a price? Or a release date?

[@sspectre8217]

I like Kobold Press but this system just doesn’t excite me at all. Heck, I’m more hyped for One DnD and that’s a low bar. I get that it makes sense for them to be bsckwards compatible with 5e stuff with all the content they’ve made for it, but it just doesn’t feel new or that it allows for stuff that 5e doesn’t already do well

[@LordZeebee]

Yeah from everything i've seen even OneDnD is more of a departure from 5e than ToV. The tweaks are all less than what i'd just expect from a new subclass or a few optional rules like in Tasha's or something.

[@nodansland303]

I know my objection to TOTV is a corner case, but for me the change to gnomes is a deal breaker. I dont mind a shift to lineages, but I do mind Kobold press looking and the gnomes and halflings, getting confused, and then shrugging before deciding they might as well be the same thing. I dont like relegating them to half a lineage. Especially if other short races, like kobolds, aren't going to be folded into the same group i think it just shows a lack of creativity. Instead of coming up with a new take on gnomes and halflings they decided they'd rather not think to hard on the subject.

[@deschaingames1851]

I think subclasses at 1st level across the board would’ve been better because a cleric and sorcerer not having them at 1st just makes absolutely no sense. When you become a cleric, you have a deity. That deity defines your class and by extension your subclass. Sorcerers are literally BORN with their magic. In both cases subclasses at level 1 made sense, because there’s clear narrative justification.

[@The_Crimson_Witch]

You can narratively justify subclasses at level 1 *and* at level 3. At level 3, your cleric has proven themselves to their deity, and rather than simply recieving magic through prayer they have now been shown some minor favor- their subclass features. Your sorcerers magic suddenly mutates as your ability to control it improves, revealing its source and giving you a few minor abilities. Saying it should all be level 1 or all be level 3 for narrative reasons it arbitrary, because there are narrative reasons for both. But there are good mechanical reasons to have them all be at level 3. Level 1 and level 2 are tutorial levels where you get to know the base class, and should be removed from subclasses because otherwise it would be impossible for new players to wrap their head arouns how each class plays differently from one another- because subclasses define your classes tool kit so heavily. If you're an experienced group who've played every class each and have a good grip on how they all work, levels 1 and 2 aren't for you, stop using them.

[@cyphus5]

This is kinda the problem with 5e. So many choices for a new player to make. In the early days of D&D (without adding on the Advanced side of the hobby), you choose Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Magic User, Elf, Dwarf, or Halfling. That's it. Pretty easy to choose. They all had different stuff they do, but the game largely wasn't driven by prescriptive play, so your choices rarely cut you off from certain elements of play.

[@deschaingames1851]

@@The_Crimson_Witch While I see your point and to a certain extent agree, I don’t like losing out on strong multiclass dips. A couple of levels of cleric or sorcerer brings so many fun builds to life that are both narratively and mechanically compelling. A one level dip into life cleric can make your Druid an amazing natural healer, bursting with life. That one level in shadow sorcerer gives your practiced rogue a bit more dark vision than his race might naturally have. Sometimes you want your fighter to be a little holy without going straight to paladin oaths. Small dips with big mechanical swings are good for individual character narratives.

[@deschaingames1851]

@@cyphus5 I see what you mean but I think level 1 subclasses actually alleviate that to an extent. They put you squarely in a lane of “this character is good at x. This is what they derive their power from in the lore.” That immediately opens up roleplay potential and streamlines their spell selections since they already have some idea of how the character should utilize their magic. Fighters and barbs are inherently simple whereas playing a caster feels like you have a million choices in the form of spells, so a nudge in a direction helps a ton imo

[@The_Crimson_Witch]

@DeschainGames You can still take single level dips, and 2 or 3 levels in a class won't majorly affect your overall progression. I don't quite understand the point you were trying to make with paladins and fighters, because paladin is a poor example for what you've said. In fact, it actively goes against your overall point about subclasses being at level 1. You wouldn't be able to play a slightly holy fighter without having to deal with the headaches of oaths if subclasses were all at 1st level. I think of the two options, all subclasses at 3rd level is the better one.

[@Drudenfusz]

It is certainly not for me, but then I am fed up with all the D&D derivates and thus it had no chance from the start. If I ever find interest in such gaming structure, then I probably will make my own system for that from the ground up. But at the moment, I am busy working on my narrative focused system.

[@tankicat]

How totally unexciting, it's D&D 5e with minor tweaks... yay.

[@DocEonChannel]

Nothing is going to be a "5e killer" if by that you mean taking significant marketshare away from WotC. ToV is trending toward maybe 15000 backers. WotC claims about 13 million players of D&D. So Kobold are grabbing 1/1000th of the market... OK, let's say each backed set of rules has a reach beyond the backer - if we very generously assume each is played by 10 people, that's still only 1% of the market. Sure, you can probably make a decent living off 1% of D&D:s player base. But it's not gonna kill 5e.

[@whitleypedia]

DnDNA

[@asitallfallsdown5914]

"Tales of the Valiant" is a terrible system name. DOA. A system name needs to be catchy, easily identifiable, and easily shorthanded. Mutants & Masterminds. Dungeons & Dragons. Pathfinder. Tales of the Valiant sounds like an adventure module title. Something like, World Tales, Valiant d20, or something like Adventure Codex.

[@Cerekay]

no one cares about creatives except creatives

[@MarkTexasYankee]

As badly as i want to move away from 5e, TotV isn't going to do it. Not to mention the misandrist and racist comments of Project Manager Amber Seger and Designer Celeste Conowitch, sure don't make me want to overlook any hesitations I have about TofV.

[@citizensnips3850]

I mean not liking the system because you don't like it is fine but what misandrist and racist comments made you go "oh no"? Lmao