D&D 5E My critic on VRGtR

[bedir than]

No it is not a bad thing to give an audience what they want, it just feels like they gave a very narrow slice of the audience what they wanted. Maybe it is just me, but this book just falls flat and does not add much of anything interesting to the game.

I'm going to guess that you already have more Ravenloft stuff than just Curse of Strahd, unlike 90% of the current player base.

 

[Helldritch]

I'm going to guess that you already have more Ravenloft stuff than just Curse of Strahd, unlike 90% of the current player base.

Which is why I specified that this critic was considering both the old and the new player/DM in mind. Both can benefit but the newer one will, of course, get a lot more out of it as they do not have an easy access to the old materials.

 

[bedir than]

Which is why I specified that this critic was considering both the old and the new player/DM in mind. Both can benefit but the newer one will, of course, get a lot more out of it as they do not have an easy access to the old materials.

I was replying and asking a specific user who claimed that nothing interesting was added to the game.

 

[The Glen]

Is... Giving the audience what they want a bad thing...?

Depends on the size of the audience. Design by committee is usually something you want to avoid.

 

[Laurefindel]

Nice review, thanks!

The College of Spirit

The college of spirit is meh… I could have had done without that one. A bard is an entertainer, if anything, I would have prefer to have seen a rogue with some of these powers. A half caster with these little powers would have liven up the rogue class (at la :Midnight Texas if you get what I mean). Again, bards are entertainers, not spiritualists… Don’t get me wrong, I love bards but this subclass do not fit them.

I respectfully refute this statement, both that bards must be entertainers, and that the spirit college cannot be an entertainer.

I wish I had this book when we played CoS. "Spiritualist" was my concept and I hesitated between the bard and warlock for my class. Ended-up going charlatan lore bard because I didn't find a patron that I liked (for that concept), and because street fortune telling and bonaventure was his form of artistic performance in a totally cliché "Mme Olga will tell your fortune!" like in the early 20th century grand opera variety shows. Anything that would end-up on a stage or in a cabaret, or during fairs or in tourist traps, is entertainment IMO.

 

[Helldritch]

Nice review, thanks!



I respectfully refute this statement, both that bards must be entertainers, and that the spirit college cannot be an entertainer.

I wish I had this book when we played CoS. "Spiritualist" was my concept and I hesitated between the bard and warlock for my class. Ended-up going charlatan lore bard because I didn't find a patron that I liked (for that concept), and because street fortune telling and bonaventure was his form of artistic performance in a totally cliché "Mme Olga will tell your fortune!" like in the early 20th century grand opera variety shows. Anything that would end-up on a stage or in a cabaret, or during fairs or in tourist traps, is entertainment IMO.

Hey, it is a simple opinion and not an absolute truth!

But I really think that a shaman would have done the job better, flavor speaking. A spiritualist is the modern take on the shaman's spirit contacting or whatever you call communion with spirits.

 

[Charlaquin]

Depends on the size of the audience. Design by committee is usually something you want to avoid.

Fair point,

 

[Necrozius]

...It's "critique". A critic does critiques or reviews.

Sorry, it just bugs me as much as rouge vs. rogue.

 

[Helldritch]

...It's "critique". A critic does critiques or reviews.

Sorry, it just bugs me as much as rouge vs. rogue.

Thank you. I'll correct this.
Edit:"Seems I can't correct the title. Ho well, I guess it will be for next time. Thx autocorrector..."

 

[Delazar]

I quite enjoyed this book. My only minor (really minor) nitpick is the "style" of the book. Maybe it's the nostalgia talking, but I loved the gothic "look" of previous editions of Ravenloft. Some fully black pages, with white or red letters, black & white art (even better if it was from Fabian), this kind of stuff.

I understand why they don't do this anymore, they want to give the impression that it's "still D&D", but I think it loses in... mood?

As I said, a minor nitpick, it is a really good book.