The more I read this game, the more I love it as the true successor to D&D 4E, mixed with OSR sensibilities. For one, they have a marshal class, a "fighting party leader" like the old D&D 4E warlord class. My group loved this class in 4E; seeing it again is incredible.
Sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards feel thematically different - and warlocks feel like warlocks again (and they didn't ruin the class to fix them). The class description implies the patron could ask favors at any time, a 180 from the typical D&D "just another caster" sort of class feeling I get from them. This sentence, in particular:
The bond forged between the seeker and their supernatural patron is called a pact—which can have any number of terms and stipulations, most commonly arcane power in return for work in kind.
As a narrator, can you roleplay a patron and ask the warlock player to do favors, missions, or pay tribute? Or the power gets turned off? To be fair, the 2014 5E PHB says this about the warlock and pact obligations:
Your patron's demands might drive you into adventures, or they might consist entirely of small favors you can do between adventures.
It says "work for power," but the official 5E seems to hand-wave off the patron service requirement. A5E is more explicit about the roleplaying and adventuring requirements. "Work in kind" and "terms and stipulations" are much stronger statements than "might drive you" and "small favors between adventures."
But my one-level dip into warlock for sweet power! You are not forcing me to serve anything or anyone other than "the lazy spirit of giving me power and requiring nothing in return."
The video game optimizer culture over what the books say rubs me the wrong way. Warlock is something you do not one-level dip into for free power! Warlock is signing up for a lifetime of service to an extra-worldly "something," and you will be expected to give back constantly.
This is what drives people to the OSR, I swear. A pact like this in a typical OSR game is a roleplaying thing, and the consequences for refusing to return service for powers are much more severe - and that is fun! A5E, just through their presentation of the class in a more OSR-manner of writing, brings back that feeling. 4E also presented "strong binding" to a patron, but the roots of the "lazy service culture" began in 4E since the rules guaranteed the powers (and that was a mistake).
This also plays into the "gimme culture" of the current playtests, and I like designs that put roleplaying requirements on classes that aren't laid out in rules but enforced through roleplay and behavior. The same goes for paladins, clerics, and any other class that borrows power.
In my games, service is required. Bad-mouthing a patron or god can have serious consequences, and even acting out of line will be judged harshly. You will be asked for favors, sent on missions, and roleplaying a certain way will please your patron. Do it well; you may get an extra spell point, expertise die, or another boon until you rest next. I may even drop in patron help during a critical moment in the adventure just because your patron is happy (and has another warlock they want to give a mission to).
The video game mentality is destroying 5E by making the game entirely about power.
This is probably due to the VTT. Classes and powers need to be standardized for UI elements, like power buttons. But the overall focus on power, not roleplay, will kill the game.
You can never make D&D compete with an ARPG on the videogame level.
I feel Pathfinder 2 is also overly focused on powers and not roleplaying. 4E also had that same problem. We must always take a step back from this and focus on roleplaying again and what it means to choose a class. Again, this drives people to the OSR and games like Shadowdark (and I am there too).
Focus too much on power, and there is little difference between 5E, Pathfinder 2E, 4E, and tabletop Warhammer 40K wargaming. A5E focuses on the game's three main pillars, preventing it from getting too power-centric. Social interaction and exploration are "ways you can lose" that have nothing to do with your character sheet full of powers and lean more toward roleplaying.
 |
| AI Art by @nightcafestudio |
There were some excellent decisions in 4E related to the wargaming aspect. A5E also presents environments as participants in combats, giving environmental effects a guaranteed spot on the initiative track and integrating them into overland travel. This fantastic feature was introduced in 4E and almost as quickly dropped in 5E. Falling boulders, swirling bats, flame rain, unstable footing, jets of heated steam, and any other environmental hazard can interact with combatants at every turn of battle. They can be used as travel hazards and inflict damage or consume supplies.
Cool.
Again, more amazing 4E concepts coming back (the hazards, not the overland). 4E had some significant innovations, but the wargame part turned many people off. It is great to see the best pieces of 4E being resurrected.
4E could have had better overland travel rules, and A5E reaches into the OSR and builds a fun exploration and travel system into the game. In some ways, the game goes beyond 4E, returns to the root of the hobby, and pulls in the classic pillars of play. The ranger matters and can make the difference between never arriving at a dungeon and arriving rested, well-fed, and avoiding significant encounters that drain resources.
Without an excellent overland game, you don't need to have rangers in the game - and then you are forced to make them entirely a combat class. Rangers are to the exploration pillar what rogues are to the stealth game.
It is early, but I need to hear more on the classic pillars of play from the Tales of the Valiant team. I hope they address exploration and travel, which will be in my feedback when the playtests arrive there.
But A5E's designers had the foresight to support the three pillars of play as a part of the game's design principles. That alone makes me a fan. They went back into history and wrote a game that appeals to 5E players and OSR fans. And they also paid tribute to the 4E tactical combat and party synergy fans.
There is much to love here in a game that gets easily dismissed and ignored.
Yes, this isn't the "hot new thing," - and I don't buy the argument "they should have just made these ideas a 5E supplement." A5E is a redesign of 5E using core design goals.
Tales of the Valiant feels more like a "drop in 5E replacement" with balance tweaks, changes to inspiration, and presentation changes, which are needed, and the game will be fun. I hope part of their design goals includes the classic pillars of play, but I have yet to see too much on that - but it is still early.
A5E is a 5E fork and rebuild, taking 5E in a direction that plays more like 4E mixed with the OSR.
No comments:
Post a Comment