Black Flag Sell Me on Tales of the Valiant
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
RichGreen
Adventurer
There are excellent, detailed monster building rules in the GMG.
Swarmkeeper
Hero
Can someone run a fun D&D game just relying on past experience with other versions? Sure. So… you’re kinda wrong.
But are they potentially going to run into issues by playing a game assuming it is just like another past version of the game? Yep. As evidenced by a lot of complaints about 5e on this very site in the first 5 or so years after it was published. So… you’re also right.
Bupp
Adventurer
Forge of Foes by Mike Shea.
mamba
Legend
If you do not want to get a full book just on that, the ToV GM Guide is probably the next best option, has a pretty extensive section mixed in with all its topics
Lord_Blacksteel
Adventurer
I'm running ToV now and have been for several months. We are 16 sessions in and I have 8 players. All of us have extensive experience with 5E - and most of us have played a wide range of other RPG's over the decades as well. I'm using the Goodman Games 5E version of Temple of Elemental Evil as the basis for the campaign. The party is pretty much 4th level, pushing to 5th though we are using individual experience so they are not all at the exact same point of progression as not every character makes every session
I can say as a DM it runs with much of the familiarity of 5E and recent editions of D&D in general but it has a lot of polish and interesting adjustments like the Luck mechanic. Downtime is defined nicely. Going by the parts we have actually used it works very well. My only real conversion work with the adventure is using Monster Vault versions of the monsters - they are far more interesting than original 5E MM critters - and using the ToV magic items and spells where they appear.
My players really liked character creation and the way it plays as well. Luck has been a hit for the whole table. No one is looking to go back to standard 5E and no one is asking about 2024 D&D either as this game does what we were all looking for it to do - general satisfaction is something that has been commented on pretty much every session which is an extremely positive sign as my crew can get pretty picky about some of the details. Class-wise we have:
The reason we went with ToV is that we were in the mood for a D&D style campaign after a long Deadlands game and a shorter Mechwarrior game but no one was excited about 5th. I brought up ToV and pointed people to the "demo" versions that were available to see what they thought and they started talking about it with enthusiasm. This has continued for the duration so I am very happy with our choice.
Now I am running an old-school dungeon-centered campaign set in old-school Greyhawk so I am probably not pushing some of the limits here but the experience has made me want to run a more wide-open campaign using the same rules and using some of the stranger monsters KP has put out in recent years. I consider that a good sign too.
As far as which books you need the Players Book is the core of the whole thing. You definitely need that. The Monster Vault is great and gives you drop-in replacements for the Monster Manual creatures but you could use the main book to run through any 5E adventure and it will work just fine. The whole thing is very modular as you could use the ToV monsters in a standard 5E campaign as well. Luck could be ported into a 5E game with no real issues as could many of the things broken down in the GMG. It's a pretty flexible setup.
I only have two complaints:
I can say as a DM it runs with much of the familiarity of 5E and recent editions of D&D in general but it has a lot of polish and interesting adjustments like the Luck mechanic. Downtime is defined nicely. Going by the parts we have actually used it works very well. My only real conversion work with the adventure is using Monster Vault versions of the monsters - they are far more interesting than original 5E MM critters - and using the ToV magic items and spells where they appear.
My players really liked character creation and the way it plays as well. Luck has been a hit for the whole table. No one is looking to go back to standard 5E and no one is asking about 2024 D&D either as this game does what we were all looking for it to do - general satisfaction is something that has been commented on pretty much every session which is an extremely positive sign as my crew can get pretty picky about some of the details. Class-wise we have:
- Fighter
- Paladin
- Cleric
- Rogue
- Bard
- Wizard
- Ranger
ArtificerMechanist
The reason we went with ToV is that we were in the mood for a D&D style campaign after a long Deadlands game and a shorter Mechwarrior game but no one was excited about 5th. I brought up ToV and pointed people to the "demo" versions that were available to see what they thought and they started talking about it with enthusiasm. This has continued for the duration so I am very happy with our choice.
Now I am running an old-school dungeon-centered campaign set in old-school Greyhawk so I am probably not pushing some of the limits here but the experience has made me want to run a more wide-open campaign using the same rules and using some of the stranger monsters KP has put out in recent years. I consider that a good sign too.
As far as which books you need the Players Book is the core of the whole thing. You definitely need that. The Monster Vault is great and gives you drop-in replacements for the Monster Manual creatures but you could use the main book to run through any 5E adventure and it will work just fine. The whole thing is very modular as you could use the ToV monsters in a standard 5E campaign as well. Luck could be ported into a 5E game with no real issues as could many of the things broken down in the GMG. It's a pretty flexible setup.
I only have two complaints:
- Needs more sub-classes. It needs more player character material/options in general but the limited number of sub-classes feels pretty tight.
- The indexes in the printed books are just terrible. Need to check the Stealth rules - Stealth? Not in the index. Sneak maybe? Nope. Hide? Nope? Another example - Heal or Healing? Nope. There are a lot of things we've gone to check in play, especially early on with a new set of rules, and it's just not in there. Definitely room to improve there.
Last edited:
Chaltab
Legend
Shouldn't be? Obviously terms like Bloodied and 'Emanation' won't appear in the Monster Vault.
Just know that Blindsight has been renamed Keensense for TOTV.
Keith Langley
Explorer
Tales of the Valiant and D&D2024 both set out on similar missions at about the same time - to improve aspects of D&D2014 without invalidating previously published content that both companies hope to continue selling. They ended up with some cases of convergent evolution, some overall power increase while nerfing a few power combos, and each of them had areas where they were cautious and conservative and others where they innovated.
(basis for comparison: I'm a professional GM running ToV tables, D&D2024 tables, and mixed tables)
Places where I think ToV shines:
1) Luck. A fabulous mechanic to replace the always-forgotten and way too subjective Inspiration. Even if you don't play ToV, steal this rule.
2) Lineage-Heritage-Background-Talent. The character creation process has more interesting options and decisions, resulting in much more varied characters even at first level.
3) Monster design. This has always been a Kobold Press strong suit, and the Monster Vault made every single iconic monster cool in some new way.
4) The mechanist class. It feels more like a gadgeteer than the artificer ever did.
5) Making rituals a separate silo. These are spells for non-combat situations mostly - downtime, exploration, investigation, social. Shining a spotlight on them encourages both GMs and players to pay more attention to that part of the game.
6) Taking that starting +2/+1 to stats and putting it.... nowhere. Just start with higher stats. Done. Along with giving three talent options with each background, this further opens up character building. By contrast, 2024 in some ways just moved the problem points. In that system instead of every X class needing to be Y species, every X class needs to have Y background. All monks must be sailors, because that's the only way to start with Tavern Brawler.
Places where 2024 did a better job of innovating than ToV:
1) Rewriting spells. ToV was too cautious about tinkering with spells and adding new ones, which surprised me considering the crazy broken stuff they put out in Deep Magic 1 and 2.
2) Fixing some problem rules. Simplified exhaustion was great. Removing most opposed roles (grapple, etc) saves time.
Places where both ALMOST got it:
1) Weapon options/ Weapon Mastery. 2024 gives always-on effects to different weapons, and only martials can use them. ToV gives choices to either apply an effect or hit for damage, and all characters can use them. 2024 is, after the novelty of knocking a creature prone every single time you hit, not a solution to combat monotony. You're still doing the same thing over and over. ToV locked too many of their effects behind a double success gate - you must first hit your target, then they must fail at a save, for your brave move to do anything. My solution is to keep the ToV options but drop the saving throw requirements; they work on a hit. Giving up your damage is enough penalty without making them usually-fail options. (Note: this is at least the third Kobold Press version of weapon options - Midgard Heroes Handbook, Tome of Heroes, and now ToV. MHH was too strong, ToH about right, and ToV a bit weak in my opinion. But the fact that all 3 are published lets a GM fine tune a weapon options suite for their table).
Places both failed:
1) Mounted combat. It still sucks and no one tried to fix it.
Specific classes are definitely more powerful in one ruleset than the other. The ToV bard and ranger, and the 2024 barbarian, for example, are clearly a cut above their cross-system counterparts.
(basis for comparison: I'm a professional GM running ToV tables, D&D2024 tables, and mixed tables)
Places where I think ToV shines:
1) Luck. A fabulous mechanic to replace the always-forgotten and way too subjective Inspiration. Even if you don't play ToV, steal this rule.
2) Lineage-Heritage-Background-Talent. The character creation process has more interesting options and decisions, resulting in much more varied characters even at first level.
3) Monster design. This has always been a Kobold Press strong suit, and the Monster Vault made every single iconic monster cool in some new way.
4) The mechanist class. It feels more like a gadgeteer than the artificer ever did.
5) Making rituals a separate silo. These are spells for non-combat situations mostly - downtime, exploration, investigation, social. Shining a spotlight on them encourages both GMs and players to pay more attention to that part of the game.
6) Taking that starting +2/+1 to stats and putting it.... nowhere. Just start with higher stats. Done. Along with giving three talent options with each background, this further opens up character building. By contrast, 2024 in some ways just moved the problem points. In that system instead of every X class needing to be Y species, every X class needs to have Y background. All monks must be sailors, because that's the only way to start with Tavern Brawler.
Places where 2024 did a better job of innovating than ToV:
1) Rewriting spells. ToV was too cautious about tinkering with spells and adding new ones, which surprised me considering the crazy broken stuff they put out in Deep Magic 1 and 2.
2) Fixing some problem rules. Simplified exhaustion was great. Removing most opposed roles (grapple, etc) saves time.
Places where both ALMOST got it:
1) Weapon options/ Weapon Mastery. 2024 gives always-on effects to different weapons, and only martials can use them. ToV gives choices to either apply an effect or hit for damage, and all characters can use them. 2024 is, after the novelty of knocking a creature prone every single time you hit, not a solution to combat monotony. You're still doing the same thing over and over. ToV locked too many of their effects behind a double success gate - you must first hit your target, then they must fail at a save, for your brave move to do anything. My solution is to keep the ToV options but drop the saving throw requirements; they work on a hit. Giving up your damage is enough penalty without making them usually-fail options. (Note: this is at least the third Kobold Press version of weapon options - Midgard Heroes Handbook, Tome of Heroes, and now ToV. MHH was too strong, ToH about right, and ToV a bit weak in my opinion. But the fact that all 3 are published lets a GM fine tune a weapon options suite for their table).
Places both failed:
1) Mounted combat. It still sucks and no one tried to fix it.
Specific classes are definitely more powerful in one ruleset than the other. The ToV bard and ranger, and the 2024 barbarian, for example, are clearly a cut above their cross-system counterparts.
Would you say that you could use the ToV Monster Vault pretty seamlessly with the 2024 PHB and DMG?
Similar Threads
