I think most people misunderstood the purpose of ToV. As you said, this game is a 5e fork and focuses on an audience that doesn't want to put aside their 5e books and still enjoy something new, but without throwing away what they already have. That's what happened with Pathfinder back in 2009, and I'm sure it will bring good results not only for KP but for the whole community
So long as KP continues to support it, which it looks like will be the case. I'm interested in how they use the Labyrinth concept, I could see them going ham on mini-settings with that.
@@stephendragonspawn6944not enough changes, d20 core system deserves that, the early access for the play test is available on mystic portal emporium channel profile
The tech level concerns with the Artificer always confused me because, well, their original incarnation back in 3.5 as part of Eberron wasn’t all that tech-focused. They were just a spell caster specialised in putting their magic into items rather than direct manifestation. Eberron’s style and aesthetic, coupled with everyone’s idea of a crafting-heavy class, gave it some tech focus but that didn’t really become the major aspect until 5e’s version of it where they suddenly became a gadgeteer.
It reminds me of the debate on whether rangers should be half-casters. Personally, I feel that making something a half-caster gets used as a get-out-of-design-free card. To say nothing of how magic use overshadows so much.
@@MildraTheMonkVT Oh I was just talking about the class' aesthetic and such, not anything mechanical. Although you boil the 5e artificier down to its raw mechanics and there's nothing in there properly giving a "gadgeteer" vibe either outside of *maybe* their subclass' focus... which could just as easily be conventionally-created magical items and not tech at all.
"World's most litigious RPG" lol, so true! I love KP and have over a dozen of their books, and was so excited when PBF was announced but unfortunately it's just a 5e clone, and in most cases literally identical for classes/sub. No thanks. It's a shame with all that creative minds at KP they couldn't do something better.
There are some genuine differences, especially in how class levels are structured, which doesn't sound as important as it is. If you didn't like 5e at all, you probably won't like this, though. If you liked *parts* of 5e but wish it was better...this might be for you.
@5:00 The Dropped Monk? How is it that both of these organizations can't seem to get this right - or even improved with that horrible UA6 Monk that besically said we will make Monk a Support class that requires at least one more support to do its best thing reliably (stunning strike).
@GamingMonkMildra no you didn't. I'm just checking if Monk was left off the list for a reason. That's why the time reference was there. Looks like they will keep monk. They just don't have info for it.
On one hand, it's sad that 5e is going further and further away from og adventuring day design of 5-8 encounters with 2 short rests per long rests. On the other hand, most players ignored those recommendations, leading to stuff like warlocks having no slots instead of having the highest number of high level (max 5th) slots compared to other casters. Considering that most 5e groups don't like following the kinda strict math 5e is built on (imo, very strict math if you wanna follow recommendations and not nerf or buff classes too much) making the math softer by making stuff more long rest based is a good idea. Like, giving different classes different different resource economy and then not doing almost anything to support it is a resource to disaster and how 5e still has weakish martials (unless you use one of those "band aid" subclasses) A proper way would've been to make it possible to make 2 short rests per long rest benefits and possible to gain long rest benefits only if you rest specifically in a good location, meaning that the party would have trouble long resting most of the time. I heard Adventures in the Middle Earth did that
I didn't see a whole lot of "more long rest based" in TotV so much as having the usage per rest be dependent on an ability modifier or proficiency bonus. That's preferable since it'll scale. TBH, I never gave much thought to the amount of encounters you're supposed to have because that's stepping onto the toes of the table. Alas, what 5e's doing doesn't concern me.
@@MildraTheMonkVT all in all, it's just a 5e thing that you had to have 1 or, preferrably, 2 short rests per long rest per design. I think that it's kinda sad how most 5e players don't play 5e like that and, due to that, WotC stopped supporting that style of play. It makes for fun resource management (which makes sense how 5e seems focused on dungeon crawls) but is much trickier to work with, as you need a certain type of adventure and wotc just decided to not make it "gamey" and such ig... Having everyone run on same resource economy makes it much easier to just change the playstyle, as it affects everyone in a much more similar fashion...
@@MildraTheMonkVT I basically don't play 5e at this point. Pf2e and shadowrun 5e rn. I, in terms of dnd stuff, am basically only interested in playing "let's fix this mess of a system" dnd5e... and maybe trying out totv once it comes out... also maybe trying out 4e
Sooooo it's just DnD with some serial numbers filed off, and some new paint. Pass. While I understand the whole situation, if you are just going to "reinvent" the meh of d20 OGL, then don't bother. Until WotC goes down in flames from woke bullshit, there's no point in adding ANOTHER d20 based fantasy rpg that is just another attempt to out Tolkein Middle Earth.
There are numerous D20-based fantasy RPGs out there, and have been for quite some time. The presence or absence of Wizards or their games is immaterial to the larger D20 bubble at this time. While Tales of the Valiant shows some of its inspiration from 5e in its DNA, it is still unique and has its own charms. You're throwing away potentially good games due to your rabid hatred of Wizards. Don't do that.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but 5e’s popularity was at a peak before the ogl fiasco. So that “woke bullshit” that hurts your feelings and offends you has not hurt DnD at all.
![Mildra The Monk [EN vTuber]](http://yt3.ggpht.com/mmYvb-e7obsRxdnrKNzBEmuRYfmNhm9qw2U7zFUZdHVkH55L-_jdPpKsCMQ8UcZv7IJ6CORqXWk=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)
I think most people misunderstood the purpose of ToV.
As you said, this game is a 5e fork and focuses on an audience that doesn't want to put aside their 5e books and still enjoy something new, but without throwing away what they already have. That's what happened with Pathfinder back in 2009, and I'm sure it will bring good results not only for KP but for the whole community
So long as KP continues to support it, which it looks like will be the case. I'm interested in how they use the Labyrinth concept, I could see them going ham on mini-settings with that.
@@MildraTheMonkVT The labyrinth concept is to inter-connect all the differeing campaign worlds, including home-brew worlds.
I don't know... 5e "clone" is kind of what I expected from day zero. I'm not sure how they gave the impression they were aiming at anything else.
I didn't call it a clone because I felt that'd be too reductive/easy.
I like to think of ToV as D&D 5.5
@@stephendragonspawn6944not enough changes, d20 core system deserves that, the early access for the play test is available on mystic portal emporium channel profile
The tech level concerns with the Artificer always confused me because, well, their original incarnation back in 3.5 as part of Eberron wasn’t all that tech-focused. They were just a spell caster specialised in putting their magic into items rather than direct manifestation. Eberron’s style and aesthetic, coupled with everyone’s idea of a crafting-heavy class, gave it some tech focus but that didn’t really become the major aspect until 5e’s version of it where they suddenly became a gadgeteer.
It reminds me of the debate on whether rangers should be half-casters. Personally, I feel that making something a half-caster gets used as a get-out-of-design-free card. To say nothing of how magic use overshadows so much.
@@MildraTheMonkVT Oh I was just talking about the class' aesthetic and such, not anything mechanical. Although you boil the 5e artificier down to its raw mechanics and there's nothing in there properly giving a "gadgeteer" vibe either outside of *maybe* their subclass' focus... which could just as easily be conventionally-created magical items and not tech at all.
Thank you for this! I wasn’t really sure how different ToV would be, I was hopeful for something more original but alas.
lucky = 2D20´s momentum?
Not exactly, but certainly in the same ballpark.
"World's most litigious RPG" lol, so true! I love KP and have over a dozen of their books, and was so excited when PBF was announced but unfortunately it's just a 5e clone, and in most cases literally identical for classes/sub. No thanks. It's a shame with all that creative minds at KP they couldn't do something better.
Calling it a clone is a bit reductionist, I think. Especially since if was "literally identical" I wouldn't be talking about it.
There are some genuine differences, especially in how class levels are structured, which doesn't sound as important as it is. If you didn't like 5e at all, you probably won't like this, though. If you liked *parts* of 5e but wish it was better...this might be for you.
It'll be interesting to contrast this with OneD&D in a few months....but I have a feeling I know who will come out on top in that.
But, it was always supposed to be a 5E clone, right? Sounds like goal achieved.
Clone is an overused term.
@5:00 The Dropped Monk? How is it that both of these organizations can't seem to get this right - or even improved with that horrible UA6 Monk that besically said we will make Monk a Support class that requires at least one more support to do its best thing reliably (stunning strike).
I never said they dropped monk, it just wasn't in this playtest.
@GamingMonkMildra no you didn't. I'm just checking if Monk was left off the list for a reason. That's why the time reference was there. Looks like they will keep monk. They just don't have info for it.
On one hand, it's sad that 5e is going further and further away from og adventuring day design of 5-8 encounters with 2 short rests per long rests.
On the other hand, most players ignored those recommendations, leading to stuff like warlocks having no slots instead of having the highest number of high level (max 5th) slots compared to other casters.
Considering that most 5e groups don't like following the kinda strict math 5e is built on (imo, very strict math if you wanna follow recommendations and not nerf or buff classes too much) making the math softer by making stuff more long rest based is a good idea.
Like, giving different classes different different resource economy and then not doing almost anything to support it is a resource to disaster and how 5e still has weakish martials (unless you use one of those "band aid" subclasses)
A proper way would've been to make it possible to make 2 short rests per long rest benefits and possible to gain long rest benefits only if you rest specifically in a good location, meaning that the party would have trouble long resting most of the time.
I heard Adventures in the Middle Earth did that
I didn't see a whole lot of "more long rest based" in TotV so much as having the usage per rest be dependent on an ability modifier or proficiency bonus. That's preferable since it'll scale.
TBH, I never gave much thought to the amount of encounters you're supposed to have because that's stepping onto the toes of the table. Alas, what 5e's doing doesn't concern me.
@@MildraTheMonkVT all in all, it's just a 5e thing that you had to have 1 or, preferrably, 2 short rests per long rest per design.
I think that it's kinda sad how most 5e players don't play 5e like that and, due to that, WotC stopped supporting that style of play.
It makes for fun resource management (which makes sense how 5e seems focused on dungeon crawls) but is much trickier to work with, as you need a certain type of adventure and wotc just decided to not make it "gamey" and such ig...
Having everyone run on same resource economy makes it much easier to just change the playstyle, as it affects everyone in a much more similar fashion...
TBH, I've stopped caring about what WotC is gonna do. I'm more interested in the third party, hence this video.
@@MildraTheMonkVT I basically don't play 5e at this point. Pf2e and shadowrun 5e rn.
I, in terms of dnd stuff, am basically only interested in playing "let's fix this mess of a system" dnd5e... and maybe trying out totv once it comes out... also maybe trying out 4e
Sooooo it's just DnD with some serial numbers filed off, and some new paint.
Pass.
While I understand the whole situation, if you are just going to "reinvent" the meh of d20 OGL, then don't bother.
Until WotC goes down in flames from woke bullshit, there's no point in adding ANOTHER d20 based fantasy rpg that is just another attempt to out Tolkein Middle Earth.
I'm not defending WotC, but I feel like you already had a conclusion in mind before you even watched regarding TotV.
There are numerous D20-based fantasy RPGs out there, and have been for quite some time. The presence or absence of Wizards or their games is immaterial to the larger D20 bubble at this time. While Tales of the Valiant shows some of its inspiration from 5e in its DNA, it is still unique and has its own charms.
You're throwing away potentially good games due to your rabid hatred of Wizards. Don't do that.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but 5e’s popularity was at a peak before the ogl fiasco. So that “woke bullshit” that hurts your feelings and offends you has not hurt DnD at all.