Forgotten Heroes: Fang, Fist, and Song - available at RPGNow.com

[Hypersmurf]

One thing that's interesting is that monk has no armor proficency but does have abilities that work with cloth armor. Feat use or errata... Probably feat use.

Which feat? There is no Armor Proficiency (Cloth) feat...

... and that's because "All characters are proficient with cloth armor", PHB p212.

-Hyp.

 

[Eytan Bernstein]

Did you get that in writing?

Alas, I did not.

 

[Filcher]

My full review is up:
Review: “Forgotten Heroes: Fang, Fist, and Song” | Critical Hits

Good review. You should post it to the ENworld review section.

 

[tuxgeo]

I mostly want to know how it stacks up against the APG from an editting perspective...and what the publisher's policy is on incorporating errata into PDFs.

And I hope they do more proofreading before releasing the paper version, because I downloaded the Druid Preview PDF and found mistakes such as:
(1) Under Druid, Summon Animal Companion, Wolf: "When your bear is hit by a . . . succeed, your bear is unharmed. . . . checks using your bear." (It should be "wolf" instead of "bear" in each case in that paragraph.)
(2) New Keyword "Summon" or "Summoning" (both are used): Level 1 Encounter Wilding "Courageous Companion" has the "Summoning" Keyword; Level 1 Daily Wilding "Summon Swarm" does not have either one, but has the "Conjuration" Keyword instead; Level 5 Daily Wilding "Summon Treant" has the "Summon" Keyword. It's inconsistent: if a Summons can be a Conjuration, why define a new "Summon" Keyword at all?

Personally, I would have expected a 3.5e-reminiscent 4e Druid to have Light Shield Proficiency; but I know it only costs a Feat, so no problem.

On a fluff note: what font size is used to carve 50 Rituals (using Runes) into a single Fetish? Font size 0.05? Where do Druids get the microscopes needed to read that? (Rituals take many pages each in a book.)

 

[Eytan Bernstein]

And I hope they do more proofreading before releasing the paper version, because I downloaded the Druid Preview PDF and found mistakes such as:
(1) Under Druid, Summon Animal Companion, Wolf: "When your bear is hit by a . . . succeed, your bear is unharmed. . . . checks using your bear." (It should be "wolf" instead of "bear" in each case in that paragraph.)
(2) New Keyword "Summon" or "Summoning" (both are used): Level 1 Encounter Wilding "Courageous Companion" has the "Summoning" Keyword; Level 1 Daily Wilding "Summon Swarm" does not have either one, but has the "Conjuration" Keyword instead; Level 5 Daily Wilding "Summon Treant" has the "Summon" Keyword. It's inconsistent: if a Summons can be a Conjuration, why define a new "Summon" Keyword at all?

Personally, I would have expected a 3.5e-reminiscent 4e Druid to have Light Shield Proficiency; but I know it only costs a Feat, so no problem.

On a fluff note: what font size is used to carve 50 Rituals (using Runes) into a single Fetish? Font size 0.05? Where do Druids get the microscopes needed to read that? (Rituals take many pages each in a book.)

I can't comment on the proofreading because I'm not involved in that, but in terms of "font size," I think druids are more likely to create individual symbols that represent their rituals, rather than carving numerous words on their implements.

 

[tuxgeo]

I can't comment on the proofreading because I'm not involved in that, but in terms of "font size," I think druids are more likely to create individual symbols that represent their rituals, rather than carving numerous words on their implements.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm personally going to interpret that to mean that the runes on the implements are reminders/boasting, and that each F.H. Druid needs to buy a Ritual Book out of their starting 100 gp in order to hold the actual content of their known Rituals, thus: Ritual Book (50 gp) + Hide Armor (30 gp) + Standard Adventurer's Kit (15 gp) = 95 gp, leaving 5 gp for a weapon -- and each of the listed weapons costs 5 gp or less.
That works for me. (It even reflects the feel of 3.5e Druids' having less starting wealth than some other classes.)
(I would much rather interpret it that way than to think that Druids do not need to read their rituals in order to cast them.)
( /tuxgeo mentally castigates himself for imagining Illiterate Ritual Casters. (IRC))

 

[JoeGKushner]

Which feat? There is no Armor Proficiency (Cloth) feat...

... and that's because "All characters are proficient with cloth armor", PHB p212.

-Hyp.

That's a very good point. However, it's also listed with every character class. More importantly, and what I was thinking, was "If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins." Not listing cloth armor as a valid armor type... oversight or class design?

 

[Fifth Element]

That's a very good point. However, it's also listed with every character class. More importantly, and what I was thinking, was "If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins." Not listing cloth armor as a valid armor type... oversight or class design?

Obviously an oversight, because there is no Armor Proficiency (Cloth) feat in the PHB. So even if you wanted to train your monk in cloth armour (assuming it was purposeful design), you wouldn't be able to.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Obviously an oversight, because there is no Armor Proficiency (Cloth) feat in the PHB. So even if you wanted to train your monk in cloth armour (assuming it was purposeful design), you wouldn't be able to.

And yet instead of being blank, under armor profiency it says "None."

That's a pretty specific call no?

 

[tuxgeo]

And yet instead of being blank, under armor profiency it says "None."

That's a pretty specific call no?

Re: "Forgotten Heroes" Monk and/or Cloth Armor Proficiency:
Could they be drawing a fine distinction between Proficiency and Training?

In looking at the F.H. Druid Preview PDF, I see that they list "Weapon Proficiencies," but list "Armor Training" instead of "Armor Proficiencies" -- could this mean that they hold that the Monk possesses Cloth Armor Proficiency without having had to take specific Training to get it?
(Or am I imagining too fine a point?)