D&D 5.5E: It Is Not the Classes...

It is the monsters.

The class designs in D&D 5.5E? Fine, they work.

The rules of D&D 5.5E are also fine.

The art is very hit-and-miss.

The DMG is also fine.

The game could be more beginner-friendly. There are too many subclasses in the Player's Handbook, which water down each class and make the game worse for new players. Tales of the Valiant got roasted for only delivering two subclass options for each class, but it was the right move.

As a new player, I only want two iconic choices for my subclass pick, A or B.

Leave all of the esoteric and specialized choices to the expansion books, please.

Shipping four, often very specific and narrowly-focused options, like the D&D 5.5E bard (dance, glamour, lore, and valor), feels like a step back, and it also limits player choice. The decision matrix for a new player, comparing four classes up to level 20, is too much. Plus, thematically, glamour and dance feel far too closely related to be distinct choices. It also tells players, "You can dance or have special effects, but not both."

In ToV? I got lore and victory as my choices (similar to lore and valor), and whether I want to dance or create flashy effects is up to me. By the time we get to ToV Player's Guide 2, we get allure, mockery, and sound, which again don't limit options by putting all the dancing bards in one box, but they stay on the thematic side and avoid putting dancers and flashy effects in boxes, which all subclasses should be able to do.

The class designs of D&D 5.5E are fine. I prefer Tales of the Valiant as a set of optimized, clean 2014-style class designs. 

Sadly, class designs are mostly all that D&D YouTubers focus on.

But it is not the classes that are the key difference here; it is the monsters. When I saw Cthulhu in the new Ravenloft book doing 27 damage on a claw attack, and 6d6 on a tentacle attack (not even level 3 fireball damage), I knew D&D was dead. There is a huge problem in the core design ethos of D&D if the game is more afraid of the players than the players are afraid of the game.

This is a problem that does not have an easy fix.

D&D has gone soft.

ToV's monsters? Yeah, my ancient red dragon is spitting a 105-point fire breath and has a roar that makes everyone who fails the save vulnerable to fire damage, potentially doubling the damage of that attack. D&D 5.5E? 91 damage, save for half. The difference in damage is nearly fourfold, from the worst to the best possible result.

The ToV dragon has fewer hit points, too, so the message is clear: kill the dragon quick, or everyone dies. With D&D, low damage, nearly double the health at 600 hit points, and a slog of low damage, repeated, boring attacks, and a combat that drags on for hours.

This is not a fantasy adventure game with a sense of danger and excitement, where the chance of losing a character is real. Where a referee could rule that when the dragon's breath vaporizes you with a 210-point inferno, no resurrection or wish spell could make you return to the mortal realm. You were hit by a force of primal energy from the world's creation. There is no coming back from that.

A tomb created by a lich with access to god-like necromancy? Yeah, death in this tomb is permanent, and all death saves are made at a disadvantage. Players should be scared for their characters because that is the heart of the game.

This is why Shadowdark is so popular: there is real danger, and players are afraid of what is in that book. Even the environment design of Shadowdark is designed to kill characters. This is a game that knows horror far, far better than D&D will ever hope to. D&D's horror is a plastic sheet of wood veneer Contact Paper, compared to the hardwood panels of Shadowdark.

They are built differently.

And the whole myth of 5E being so easy, with invincible characters who do not die, does not come from any other 5E systems, such as Tales of the Valiant or Level Up A5E. This fatal flaw is placed squarely upon D&D's doorstep. They own this. Not any of the other games. Reading the PHB and DMG for 2024 does not even give you a hint of this problem, either. It is only when you crack open the Monster Manual that you begin to see what is happening here.

This is why I prefer ToV and Shadowdark: the monsters can and will kick your butt, kill your characters, and end your campaign if you don't put them down quickly.

I also have the freedom to rule that a character's death is final. The campaign can be softer in the mid-levels, but by the time you are saving the world, the stakes should be raised.

It is good storytelling.

Tales of the Valiant: Northlands Hardcovers

I got the Northlands hardcovers from Kobold Press's crowdfunding this week, and I like them a lot. It feels like a new direction for ToV in how the game is presented and in their approach to the system. The game feels like it has hit its comfort zone, and the designers are now focusing on providing curated experiences rather than more generic base-class content.

Once Player's Guide 2 came out, we were mostly done with generic base-class options, those sort of "fill in the gaps" books for a system that add popular niche options. Now, we are adding thematic content that fills gaps in those areas, while also providing enough supporting material for these thematic options so that, when you use them, they aren't "fish out of water" experiences.

It is like a game providing a generic "valkyrie" class option, but no setting to use it in, no lore to support it, and no real reason to use it other than a cosplay option. It is a weak game design trope, as fantasy games are much stronger if you give me something to work with, a collection of "specific yet generic" content built around a theme, and a reason that this class should be in the world.

Shadowdark has this problem with its third-party material. I got dozens of "did this first" classes that don't really belong in the world, other than to have the Shadowdark version of a class, and it is weaker overall since it never fits into a dungeon crawl, doesn't support the theme, nor does it have supporting material to make it a necessary or even useful choice.

With the Northlands books, we get a combination of a gazeteer and character options book, then an adventure book, and I have everything I need to tell thematic stories in this Norse-like sandbox. I have a campaign, character options, and adventures, and I am set for years playing here.

Also, if I am off playing generic fantasy, I can put these add-on books away and narrow down my options to just a core-book experience. I don't need them, but I have them.

Tales of the Valiant is hitting its stride as a popular Open 5E alternative, and I like the design far better than the run-on sentence of D&D 2024, which fixed almost every problem except combat lengths and lethality. To be honest, D&D's biggest problem right now is too-long combats and lethality, and this is an issue that Tales of the Valiant solves by reducing monster hit points and making monsters hit much harder, so players start losing resources at a faster rate. This also dramatically increases lethality, and with a handful of houserules on top of the default 5E lethality, the problem is solved.

"Ideally, you and your players would have established the potential for PC death and the way it would be handled at the start of the campaign."

Tales of the Valiant, Gamemaster's Guide, page 30

All the YouTubers who say "it is impossible to die" in D&D 5E are making me want to challenge this assumption. The ToV GM's Guide mentions "the potential for PC death" in the rulebook, so this means the rules in this area, like any of the rules in the game, can be changed to make the game more lethal. Perhaps you make a "three strikes, and you are out" rule, stating your character may only drop to zero hit points three times in their entire life, total, before they meet their final fate on the fourth, and no magic will be able to bring them back to the mortal coil.

"Impossible to die in 5E" means two things when I hear it: a creator is trying to sell you a new game, or the group you are with is too inflexible to consider houseruling and fixing the issue in a manner appropriate to their table. If you have the energy to complain about it, you have the energy to fix the problem and agree to a solution; then there is no need to buy another game to fix it.

I swear, this is what we did as kids in the 1980s. Mom didn't have the money to keep buying us new games to fix the problems with the old ones, so we worked out solutions ourselves with the game we were lucky to have. Besides, buying new games means buying new problems.

ToV is just a better fit for me since combat runs faster and the game is more lethal, which is a tuning that I prefer to all other versions of 5E. From there, I can houserule-fix any problems 5E has and get to a comfortable spot with the system. D&D has a massive problem with making high-level foes do almost no damage on a successful hit, like the new Ravenloft version of Cthulhu, doing 27 damage on a claw attack and having 385 hit points. The only horror we will experience fighting that monster is wondering why the fight was so easy, and why we aren't playing a Chaosium game instead.

D&D is so easy; it is like playing a video game on the easiest difficulty level and then complaining that you can't die, that the game is too easy, and that nothing is a challenge. YouTubers repeat this endlessly. I get tired of hearing it, and I solved the problem by switching to a game that raises the challenge level, speeds up combat, and makes monsters hit way harder. I also make a few houserules, and the game is as lethal as Shadowdark.

ToV is a great game that fixes structural problems that cannot be fixed within D&D.

The Northlands books continue the string of hits that ToV is having.

It is a better game, tuned perfectly to a speed and lethality I prefer, and it is just the far better choice. If you are sleeping on ToV, you are missing out.

The Post-Star Wars Era

"Yeah, they killed our Star Wars, dude."

Star Wars is dead, long live Star Wars. Like many, I don't even want to hear about new Star Wars projects until the creators can get their house in order. I am sick of them stealing from the Expanded Universe, and all it proves is that the EU was a better universe that today's lesser creators will constantly steal from and remix.

It sucks.

It is just like my feelings about D&D: the current creative team at Wizards will never create anything as iconic as The Tomb of Horrors. Tyranny of Dragons is the closest thing to a masterpiece that the current Wizards have made, but it was created under the direction of the 2014 team and by the Kobold Press team. So this part of D&D's magnum opus and current greats was written by the crew that later wrote Tales of the Valiant.

Which, in itself, is telling. This is Kobold Press' Paizo moment. They proved they can make better D&D than D&D, and they know the secret sauce that makes 5E fun and engaging. This book was, in my opinion, the passing of the torch for 5E.

Wizards sort of went their own way after this, following the path of the "lifestyle game."

Kobold Press stuck to the original ideas and inspiration of D&D. Keep your head down, axe to the grindstone, and keep pumping out classic worlds and adventures.

But I don't have faith that the current D&D team could make anything as great as the original run of Greyhawk adventures. The creative team lives in fear of social media; anything that could be triggering or controversial would be whitewashed and banned. Vault of the Drow would be presented from both sides, with options for heroic drow, and a good faction added. In a way, this adventure forces high-level characters into a "fish out of water" situation with an epic underground campaign they can't muscle their way through, and the ending is most likely death for most involved.

The Tomb of Horrors would include all sorts of warnings about horror, and possibly softened to "make it all a dream," and nothing in there could ever permanently kill a high-level character. Gary Gygax wrote this to put the egos of high-level characters in check, and to dispel the notion of invincibility. He succeeded, and this was sorely needed back then - like it is sorely needed today.

And with Star Wars, it is the same story. I get the feeling that if George Lucas were to ever make a new Star Wars project, he would have none of the original characters, worlds, races, ships, or anything from the original trilogy or sequels. He would likely do something entirely brand new, with new characters, new lore, and things we have never seen before. People would reject it and hate it, saying they wanted more of the original. But, in the end, he would be right, and whatever he made would be the "new canon" that would be repeated, expanded upon, and used over and over again in the future.

Certain "greater source" creators can generate new "stem cells" of ideas for entertainment. These are the births of franchises and worlds. These creators do not come along every day, nor can they ever be created by AI. George Lucas was one, Gary Gygax was another. There are a few out there in the gaming industry, too, but not as many as you would think.

We live in an era where the fan is placed before the creator.

Other "lesser source" creators lack the imagination to create anything new. They can only remix, retcon, expand, and repeat. They are doomed to copy and recycle ideas as lesser creators forever. The world is filled with lesser creators, as common as the everyday person on the street. These are often the "super fans," like the people running Star Wars these days and the current D&D team. They are great fans of the original material, but they are not talented creators who can bring life and worlds into existence out of nothing.

They don't have "the touch."

As long as Star Wars is "run by super fans," it will always suck. You will never get any "fresh source DNA" or new ideas. The franchise will remix and recycle endlessly until the paper fibers in the cardboard break down, and the pulp material is too weak and frail to ever be used to build things from again. You can't recycle forever before you require new base material.

Yet, nobody wants new things. This is the paradox of Star Wars. We have been trained to see "old as good" and "new as bad" - but to be honest, most of the new stuff we were given was bad. None of it was made by a greater source-level creator. No new DNA was introduced. No new "stem cells" were added as the genesis of life and fandom.

You read the original D&D adventures - these are the source DNA. We badly need new life here. D&D 5.5E was written to placate social media outrage, but made some long-needed rules revisions. It is a weaker edition overall and a failure. It is meant to keep the ship sailing until 6E comes out. Tyranny of Dragons was a glimpse of the future D&D could have had, and that future now lives on in the Kobold Press world, with lots of "new DNA" being introduced with their books and adventures.

You look at Star Wars, and we are in a worse position. The best Star Wars will be the stories you tell. Even if all you do is remix and recycle, it will be better than any of the new stuff. This is why I have hope for the Star Wars RPG: it is a tool to keep the dream alive.

I sort of see Tales of the Valiant the same way. It is a tool to keep the D&D dream alive, just as the original Pathfinder 1e was a tool many years ago. There are times when we need to keep what we had to preserve what we loved, as a tool for creating the new.

D&D 5.5E: New Coke

D&D 5.5E, taken on its own, is New Coke.

I tried to immerse myself in this game. I slammed into the bottom of the swimming pool here, and it wasn't the Player's Handbook or DMG that was at fault here. Those are okay, with occasionally cringe-worthy art that I can ignore. The rules updates are workable and do their job.

The 2024 Monster Manual takes this game into New Coke territory.

I get the feeling most are still using the 2014 Monster Manual with the 2024 PHB and DMG. If this were all a brand-new system, it would die on the vine. They took what we love about the D&D monsters and erased most of the conflict, savage nature, and villainy from almost every one of them.

Without the classic D&D monsters, this is not D&D anymore.

This was D&D's "secret sauce": the monsters everyone kept coming back to battle. This is what other games lacked. This was the essential difference between a generic fantasy heartbreaker game and D&D. Without the classic D&D monsters, the game is just like any other fantasy slop game, and it needs a lot more going for it to attract attention and remain compelling.

So, D&D cut its own arm off like a terrible Rolemaster fumble chart result.

They reimagined the monsters as progressive fan fiction.

And this is not me being anti-progressive; I support the smart use of safety tools. I love Cypher System, FATE, and Tales of the Valiant. I support Paizo. I play GURPS. I love Goodman Games. I am not one of these culture war gamers. I am pretty much well in the middle of the road on most things. If you make a good game, I am there to play. I also love old-school games, BX, ACKS, and a bunch of other games that pay tribute to classic gaming.

But Wizards messed up so many classic monsters, and they butchered creatures inspired by the classic Appendix N authors. They made almost every monster into a kinder, gentler reimagining.

When I play a fantasy game, I can suspend my everyday expectations of reality. I do not need to superimpose today's values onto a fantasy world. I have a clear idea of what fantasy is and what reality is.

And progressive companies, like EN World, Goodman Games, and Kobold Press, can deliver savage, brutal, evil, and monstrous monsters without watering them down or changing the formula. None of those companies felt the need to change what makes things fun, yet they can deliver a compelling, dangerous, and clearly old-school-inspired experience. They can keep their values separate from the game while maintaining their strong core values and ensuring players feel safe during play, even when their characters are in danger.

If you are still using a 2014 Monster Manual, you don't even see this.

If all you have is a 2024 Monster Manual, the magic is gone. You can ignore a lot of the silly parts of the Monster Manual's rewrites, but nothing in this book feels right. The monsters feel like the monsters in any other slop-fantasy game. They are all fan fiction, not D&D, and feel like off-model animation where Scooby Doo is drawn all funny and doesn't look right.

So, my problem is, if I were using 2014 monsters anyway, why am I playing 5.5E? What is the point of this, to say I am "in 5.5E" and ignoring a third of the game?

I might as well play a game with a unified and consistent presentation that preserves the D&D magic and formula. Where the D&D 2014 monster descriptions were left intact. Where I play something with the version of the rules I like, have fun, and not worry about 2014 vs. 2024.

That game is Tales of the Valiant. It is also Level Up Advanced 5E.

I don't need to drink New Coke.

What few monsters don't exist in ToV can be ported in with a 2014 Monster Manual, if I choose to. The ToV monsters are, however, far better designed, and the fights are built to be short and intense. The D&D 2014 and 2024 monsters are slogs to fight, and I am often better off using ToV monsters.

What really matters, though, are the ecology and descriptions of the 2014 monsters. This is the secret sauce. This is what D&D 5.5E lacks. Tales of the Valiant, of all the things the game did, preserved everything perfectly and locked it into a version of the game we can enjoy forever.

This feels exactly like the Pathfinder 1e and D&D 4E split, where the legacy of D&D 3.5E was passed on to Pathfinder 1e, and that game and world exploded with interest. If the 2014 books were incompatible with 2024, that is where I feel we would be today, with ToV taking over the game's identity. Just like D&D 4E, Wizards has walked away from their lore. It will be a slow, boiling pot from here as 2014 is slowly phased out, and the new lore will take over. The 2014 books will go out of print, and the edition will be harder and harder to play as it was.

And frankly, replacing D&D with ToV is what should happen.

The message needs to be sent.

I'm not doing this New Coke thing.

Tales of the Valiant vs. D&D 5.5E

The classic D&D 2014 lore is preserved and expanded upon in Tales of the Valiant. The game is 100% compatible with D&D 2014 subclasses and adventures. The monsters hit hard and go down easier, leading to tougher, shorter, and more intense fights. Everything feels perfectly like classic D&D 5E. The classes and gameplay flow perfectly, matching exactly what I expect.

The luck mechanic is far, far better than Heroic Inspiration, turning close rolls into successes, and giving the player a bennie for a clear miss.

If I'm playing 5E, I'm playing ToV.

The Player's Guide 2 adds the missing subclasses, filling out all the expected roles in the game. While the first book covers the core basics and is great for new players, the second book expands on it and delivers the theme-supporting subclasses we expect. Nature clerics, mockery bards, elemental druids, twinblade fighters, grenadier mechanists, elemental voice monks, unbound paladins, shadow rangers, trapsmith rogues, and wizards get necromancer, arcanist, and summoner. Keep the corebook new player-friendly, and leave the advanced classes fully fleshed out in the expansion.

Yes, yes, and yes.

The D&D 5.5E Monster Manual pushed me over the edge. Yes, they streamlined monster complexity and optimized for speed of play. Those are laudable goals, especially for a game notorious for combats that take hours to resolve. But they cut too many abilities out of the monsters, and they now all feel like generic stat blocks. Most of the humanoids are gone, and they are confusingly split up between specific and generic types. And the writing team sanitized and scrubbed anything cool about the monsters, and rewrote most of the creatures into terrible Tumblr fan fiction.

Some of these are abjectly horrible to read, cringe-worthy, and turn D&D into a generic fantasy slop game. I can get monsters like these anywhere, heroic lizardfolk nature defenders that are abjectly horrible. The cyclops? They became future-seeing fortune-tellers who protect fate. Wouldn't that make them always win initiative? No? No room for that, or didn't think of it? They were reculsive, primitive, animal-raising brutes who mostly wanted to be left alone and turned into somebody's anime fan fiction.  There is nothing wrong with having them be more pastoral and simple folk. Even the art looks like an AI edit, the same pose as the 2014 art, but with a magical time mage in the background. Monocular Servants of Destiny? What is this book?

I get trying to "spice up" underused monsters, but these examples make no sense. Part of the heart and soul of D&D are the monsters. Changing the classic D&D monsters removes any desire for me to play the game, as I could get the same generic fantasy slop elsewhere. The book tries too hard to present monsters in a positive light, watering down true evil, removing the Conan-like edge from any savage species, and "nice-washing" every monster into a kinder and gentler variant.

You know it is bad when some cultists are described as "privately pursuing esoteric secrets." Let's not judge them, okay? It is like describing cannibals as people with "abnormal culinary tastes" and using the tagline for the monster entry, "Self-Consuming Anti-Agrarian Collective."

I tried to play D&D 5.5E. I bought character sheets. I got a campaign book. I wanted to give it a chance. The D&D 5.5E Monster Manual ruined it for me. The book is filled with tripe and fan fiction. It removes any background, lore, or inspiration for using a monster, leaving generic, dreamed-up reinterpretations.

But I gave the game an honest try.

This is the worst Monster Manual since the loose-leaf binder they sold us back in AD&D 2nd Edition, but at least that had great lore and ecology. The fact that these aren't even the same monsters as we had in that book, and that the lore on them has drastically changed, puts this squarely as the worst Monster Manual ever, with the D&D 4E Monster Manual a close second, due to the fact that some monsters had 1,400 hit points and took a day-long fight to defeat.

Tales of the Valiant? Ah, there are the D&D monsters I know and love! Just as progressive a company, but they have significantly more self-restraint, can deliver the product, and are not rewriting the game to protect players' feelings. You enter this world, there may be things that upset you, like there are things in a Conan novel that may upset you, and we will talk about it if it does. We are not rewriting Conan to protect readers' feelings. People love the D&D monsters and their lore, and this is what sets D&D apart from every other fantasy slop game on the market.

Only, D&D does not have the D&D monster lore anymore.

Tales of the Valiant does. Or D&D 2014. Or even, Level Up A5E, another very progressive company that can focus and deliver the product that gamers want. When D&D changes its lore, this is like Coke changing the formula. You have lost. Pepsi gives every employee a day off. The cola wars are over. D&D isn't D&D anymore unless we have a spare 2014 Monster Manual lying around and use it.

Could I play this?

With this?

Yes. I may have to. This may actually be more fun than playing D&D 5.5E and cringing whenever I look up a monster. I don't want to use a monster that I might accidentally mock or make fun of during play, since the lore and rewritten fan-fiction are so silly. I want the original lore and formula, not the new fantasy-slop versions. If I am not "getting the D&D," I might as well go play Daggerheart or Pathfinder.

Then again, if the 5.5E Monster Manual is that messed up, why would I want to play here? What else did they mess up in the Realms? Is it all rewritten to be audience-friendly and non-triggering? I stopped playing in the Pathfinder 2 world since the changes were terrible, and I have a feeling this will be more of the same.

The less I fight the source material, the more fun I will have.

Again, the Kobold Press alternative may be the better choice here.

B is for Bandit

Okay, this is a failure on D&D 5.5E's part. The Monster Manual organization is terrible; they alphabetized everything. The demons, devils, dragons, and humanoid enemies are all spread throughout the book. If you don't know what a balor is, a demon, you may not even realize what that is, and miss the entry completely when looking for demons. Monsters that should be NPCs are scattered throughout the book.

But, I get it, if you are looking for demons, use the Monsters by Group appendix in the back.

And why are some monsters still here, such as the Kobold Warrior and the Lizardfolk, just using the generic "Scout" stat block? And yet, there are still specific Lizardfolk monster entries, but none for the basic monster? Why is this so hard? And where do I put the Lizardfolk's swimming speed and hold breath abilities? Oh, they aren't there? There is no cultural or background data on the Lizardfolk now?

And they are somehow elementals now? And "Reptilian Defenders of the Land?" Is the D&D 5.5E Monster Manual making a value judgment on players who kill a lizardman?

Similarly, with the Bandit entry, the D&D 5.5E listing mentions that they could be, "driven to lives of crime by unjust laws, desperation, or the threats of merciless leaders." While true, this is another value judgment the writers are making here, and it shows that the book is filled with opinions and amateur writing that should not have made it past an editor.

We get two short paragraphs about Lizardfolk in D&D 5.5E, instead of a page of inspirational material as we got in D&D 2014. We get nothing on the race's basic abilities, like holding breath (gone from all entries), and the information is sparse and flavorless. We get one page on them in D&D 5.5E, two pages in D&D 2014 and A5E, and three in Tales of the Valiant.

We have gone from a savage species of lizard-like warriors and shamans that could have appeared in a Conan novel to kind, gentle, reptilian elemental eco-defenders out of Captain Planet. This doesn't need any more sensitivity readers; it needs a few more "make this make sense to me" readers. Tonally, this is all wrong. Why is a Monster Manual going out of its way to explain why the creatures in the book are somehow not monsters?

And they give the bandits guns that fire gunpowder in D&D 5.5E. This is a Pathfinder 2E influence in which the game's technology level has risen to Victorian Steampunk levels, and it is no longer in the fantasy genre. Are guns an everyday thing now? Is the town guard packing heat?

Seriously, new D&D team, fix this, or you do not have a chance with 6E. This isn't D&D.

And I could argue with so many monsters having been made "good guys" that there are fewer monsters in 2024 that are usable than in 2014. What happens if Lizardfolk are encountered in a legacy adventure? Are they somehow good guys now? If all I had were the 2024 books and my players met Lizardfolk, then why should we be killing them again? Is it "wrong?"

I was driving in my car and thought the 2024 team had hired a bunch of people who knew nothing about the game or its history, and they rewrote all the lore with some idealized, modern take, and it feels like the writers talk down on fans for having enjoyed "that game." Many of the reimagined monsters are not the real ones that helped create D&D; at best, they are fan-fiction reinterpretations. If any of these monsters were out there on DriveThru without the D&D brand on them, they would be a two or three-star, at best.

They wrote a Monster Manual to subvert D&D's lore and history. I get the feeling that too many in the hobby are just afraid to say the obvious, for fear of damaging the brand they love and depend on. Don't tip over the boat we are all in. Just keep quiet. We'll get through this if we keep playing 2014.

The 2014 Monster Manual is a better book, more organized, and far more useful during play. Who cares if the monsters are "streamlined for fast play" if they aren't worth playing with?

This book was written without grouping anything together, as if it were a VTT reference manual rather than a monster book that delves deeper into lore, history, and ecology. D&D 2014, Tales of the Valiant, and Level Up A5E still have the wonderful NPC appendices where bandits are covered, and I can apply any lineage to them. When I want detailed information on a lineage or specific monster race, it isn't there, or it is so abridged and cut down that it is all but useless.

And if you are playing D&D 5.5E, all of a sudden, you need another supplemental NPC Monster Manual just to fill out what is missing. There are some good ones, but this adds another book to the pile, even though the idea of "three books to play" has already been broken. I need another third-party book for the humanoids, bringing D&D 5.5E to five books needed to play.

The D&D 5.5E Monster Manual is a clear step down from the D&D 2014 Monster Manual.

I get the feeling D&D 5.5E DMs are secretly pulling in the "good stuff" from the D&D 2014 Monster Manual, and this is one of the factors keeping the game playable and popular.

And I can't see D&D 5.5E as a normal D&D game after this. It isn't. The new writers came in and changed too much of the classic lore, and the main reason to stay in "D&D" has been erased. If they are changing the lore of D&D this much, I will go play Draw Steel, Nimble, Daggerheart, or DC 20. There is nothing D&D about D&D anymore; it is just like any other modern fantasy slop game.

Most who play D&D 5.5E right now are those looking beyond the changes, using 2014 lore, and appreciating the rules updates and streamlining. They don't want to dump too hard on the game and destroy the hobby. I get it. We are in a terrible place with D&D right now; the game is terribly "sick," and we aren't trashing the game too hard in hopes it recovers.

But the tonal changes in D&D 5.5E remind me of the same World of Warcraft and WWE-style tonal changes they made in D&D 4E, and everyone rejected that change then, too.

If I want detailed, fun, inspiring, wonderfully crafted, and the best monsters in 5E? Do we want the old-school lore respected and properly preserved? The Tales of the Valiant Monster Vault beats the stuffing out of the D&D 5.5E Monster Manual, and it is not even close. This is actually a humiliating comparison. And ToV is still a relatively progressive and socially conscious game, and they managed to get it all right! Orcs are in the Monster Vault, and they look cool.

Tales of the Valiant looks like the premium 5E experience with the best care, love, and detail put into every one of the books. Kobold Press looks like it can strike the right tone and approach to 5E, keeping what old-school players love while not surrendering the core identity that makes the game special.

D&D 5.5E just makes me want to give up 5E entirely and switch games. There is nothing special about it now. It joined the rest of the fantasy slop games and stripped away all the classic AD&D lore.

Tales of the Valiant keeps the soul of D&D alive. It has passed on to a better team, still very progressive, but they show respect for the history of the game, and they can control themselves far better.

ToV is D&D. The lore is enshrined and preserved. The soul is there.

That is the only thing that matters.

Tales & Battlezoo = My D&D

There is an innocence and clean implementation of Tales of the Valiant that I really appreciate. This is the best "generic 5E" you can get, and unlike D&D, I don't have to keep telling myself excuses to justify playing the game, despite all its baggage from Wizards.

I grew tired of the constant virtue signaling in the art, the absolute disaster of the OGL, them telling an entire group of players they could not leave fast enough, and all the terrible, negative, hurtful things they did over the years. The warning labels on the older books were like those on cigarette cartons. The disrespect thrown at the game's original creators.

There comes a point where you prove the company is unworthy of carrying the legacy forward, and Wizards has done that over and over again. And I don't really trust "the new guy" since these people come and go every few years. I saw this with the D&D 3E, 3.5E, 4E, 5E, and 5.5E teams and creators. Nobody stays at Wizards for long. In a few years, it will likely all be run by AI anyway.

Tales of the Valiant has a no-AI pledge, and the company needs this game to be their lifeline should 5E get dumped into the dustbin of history by Wizards, and make no mistake, that day is coming. They say 5E is evergreen, but history proves that a new team will make something new, and that will be the next, new, official thing.

The 5E "platform", just like the Linux "platform", is a solid, workable, good system. Just like there are some Linux vendors I can't stand, there are some 5E vendors I refuse to work with. One of them is Wizards, despite my memories, nostalgia, and history. I support the 5E platform, not D&D.

ToV was written as a beginner's game, and it was criticized for offering only two subclass choices per class; this was later addressed in the Player's Guide 2. Then again, for a beginner's game, I only want two subclass choices per class instead of D&D's four per class. The book gets too big for new players to grasp; there are too many choices, and those entering the hobby will walk away with choice paralysis.

Two clear choices are better than four for a starter game, and the ToV ones are very clear, offering "A or B" choices that support new players, and don't leave me feeling "did I make the wrong choice?"

ToV feels like old-school Labyrinth Lord back in the day. The "no baggage" and "clean support" version of BX that introduced me to the OSR. I have my original BX books, but I still chose LL over that. LL had the support, community, and love of its creator to drive interest. There is no "product identity" in here lying in wait as a trap, so I can't share content; if it is in the Black Flag SRD, it is pretty widely supported everywhere.

ToV's designs are close to the original 2014 standards, and all the "roleplay" powers are bept intact. A clear example is the ranger. The D&D 2024 version of the ranger feels like a combat-only class that focuses more on tactical battles, and the nature and roleplay powers were stripped out, likely because they were harder to support in a (now defunct) VTT.

Tales of the Valiant's ranger preserves the nature skills and abilities, and it aligns closely with my ideas of what the "5E ranger" is all about. I want a design closer to 2014 than Tasha's or 2024, and ToV hits that nail on the head. ToV keeps the best parts of the game, fixes all the problems, and creates a "clean room" version of 5E that can be supported forever.

D&D 2024 will only last as long as it takes Wizards to pump out a new version of D&D, and the life left in 5E as "the D&D system" is on a short clock. If the 2024 version failed, it would trigger the official D&D 5E support's sunset phase.

I would rather have a system that will be around a long time. And that is Tales of the Valiant.

The Battlezoo books complement the game perfectly, adding all sorts of all-ages fun while preserving the innocence of the core game. These are my "expansion books" that fill in a bunch of thematic gaps, and add a wealth of new options for dragons, monster training, and a rich assortment of other backgrounds to play.

If I am going to invest in a Battlezoo campaign and the hardcovers, I am going to invest in a 5E system that won't be replaced a few years down the road.

And there are all sorts of fun things to play here, and so many adventures to be had with all of these wonderful books. The Roll for Combat team "gets it," and they keep their books family-friendly while overdelivering value and creativity. These are fun books meant to engage your imagination, 5E system-neutral, and highly compelling, delivering enjoyment.

If I wanted to play a dragon, I could play a dragon.

Instead of promising adventure and delivering virtue signaling, these books expand what is possible and deliver amazing potential and infinite stories. They stay out of politics. They stay out of the online culture wars. I want an escape from this world, and they deliver.

ToV does the same; it doesn't insult old-school players by removing orcs and goblins from the bestiary. If I want them, they are there, just like they were in 2014 D&D. Nobody is making that choice for me; I make it. D&D 2024 feels the need to make these choices for us, and it rubs me the wrong way, like the designers are making a value judgment on me and how I play, and that is no place for them to be.

Sometimes the best thing a designer can do is stay out of my game.

But these days, I only want positive influences and happy games that don't trigger hurtful feelings or memories. I don't want to see the war on the Internet all over the pages of a game I use to escape it. I want something suitable for everybody, without hidden sex coding or demon fetishes all over the art.

If I want mature concepts or the sensitive topic of devil worship, I will add them myself. My choice: stay out of it, agenda-driven design team. A family-friendly game that avoids prejudging old-school players gives me the room to make that choice.

All of this works together so well, and the Battlezoo books are the last reason I keep 5E around on my game table. Highly engaging and worth the money.

Digital Only and Partnered Releases

The trend of "digital only" DLC for D&D sucks. Now, we are expected to buy our games from only one storefront and never have a physical copy? Not even a PDF that will last beyond the life of D&D Beyond? When the website shuts down, is it over? Like D&D 4's errata and online character creation tools, gone forever?

The partnered content, too, does not feel great. Are we getting no hardcovers from now on? Have we moved into a "no announcements, DLC only" model of releases? Are these D&D Beyond-only releases, too, without PDFs?

The game has taken a turn for the worse. Even if I were still giving them a chance, I would be very unhappy about the state of affairs. Yet D&D YouTube pretends "this is fine," and there isn't much alarm there as they pray the golden goose doesn't die anytime soon. It is a tough position to be put in, and you pray another game takes off in popularity and sustains your viewership.

Even criticizing the current state of affairs will breed negativity and force viewers away.

If I want to play 5E, I have Tales of the Valiant or Level Up A5E. I have books, PDFs, crowdfunding campaigns, and everything the "market leader" isn't giving me. Ten-year-old books still work with the Open 5E version of the system, and newer stuff works, too. ToV offers greater compatibility, seamlessly working with existing classes and subclasses.

Since I adopted ToV as my "long-term support" 5E, I have been happy with the system and support.

All my Wizards D&D books are in the garage. Even the monster manuals and campaign books.

I am just happier where I am.

Crowdfunding Trio!

We have a trio of great crowdfunders today! First up is Pinball Crawl Classics from Goodman Games:

https://www.backerkit.com/c/projects/goodman-games/old-school-adventures-1

Next up is Night Hunters for 5E and Tales of the Valiant:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/deepmagic/night-hunters-gothic-horror-for-tov-and-5e-dandd

Adventures Dark and Deep Book of Fell Wisdom is a wonderful expansion for the premier 1E retro-clone.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/brwgames/adventures-dark-and-deep-book-of-fell-wisdom

I am onboard with all three. This is a good day for crowdfunding, bad for my wallet, but I am a fan, and they earned my support.

Poor Timing on My Part

The same day I pull my Castles & Crusades books out of the closet, the Tales of the Valiant Player's Guide 2 PDF drops to backers. It is like the 5E universe is trying to send me a message and pull me back into the fold. The timing is far too strange. I was just mentally getting prepared to bring C&C back to my shelves, and this drops?

It is silly to think this was intentional, but it just highlights my terrible timing in life.

I was thinking about C&C. I have a few shelves of BX, OSE, S&W, and OSRIC books, and I was looking to organize them. The reforged copies of C&C were always out, sitting on a spare storage shelf and waiting to go with the other books in my closet storage crates. I had C&C in those crates to give other games room to breathe, since C&C is a game that will end play for every other game around it. C&C is just that good.

Why did I pull C&C out?

I have an issue with games being so in-depth and complicated, and requiring character designers for complex characters, that I never play them. The choice comes down to: do I think about playing a game, or actually play one? Even Shadowdark requires a map, player markers, and a torch timer. GURPS needs a hex map and a detailed character build. 5E needs a VTT and web-based character sheets.

C&C needs a character sheet the size of an index card.

All the rest is theater of the mind.

If I am not playing any of these, if I choose a game where all I need is a few 4x6" cards and some dice, and I sit at a card table with a book or two at my side, then I can play. There is no book reference, no looking up charts, and no complicated collections of action types and abilities.

C&C is easier than Shadowdark, OSE, and many other rules-light games.

Yet it provides a complete 1E-like experience.

Castles & Crusades is a game that throws out every chart in the OSR. We begin with the ability score charts, one for each, with columns of esoteric modifiers and adjustments for bending bars and lifting gates, number of followers, system shock, maximum languages, hit die modifiers, and all the pedantic OSR ability score modifiers columns every game loves to include. C&C needs none of those charts.

The huge list of saving throws in OSR games, one for two types of magical implement, and all the other very specific categories? We need one chart per class, and leveled all the way up. Every time we add a class, we add a new saving throw chart. All of those are gone in C&C, replaced by a straightforward ability check system using the SIEGE Engine.

The huge thief ability chart? Gone. The bard ability charts? Gone. At most, each class gets a level chart that tells us a few key pieces of information, and when different class abilities are granted. Otherwise, ability scores do the rest of the work. I can see why this was the last game Gary Gygax was involved in; it reduced the D&D concept into an easier, more accessible form.

You play from your character sheet with near-zero book reference.

Your ability scores matter.

5E is similar to C&C, since 5E borrowed the "one chart per class" concept of the game, and did the entire "leveled class abilities" thing. Where 5E stumbles is in its subclass design, which muddies the class's identity and fails to let strong multiclassing handle that level of customization. In contrast, C&C's classes were designed to be multiclass, not in a "pick a new class every level" sort of way, but rather you will always be a "fighter/wizard" at the game's start, building your XP chart, and slowly gaining the abilities of both classes. There are no "one-level dips" in C&C to steal a few class abilities to break another class with; essentially, the game design of 5E relies on exploits.

C&C has classic multiclassing as intended. It is a far better system than 5E's chaotic, idiotic level-dipping mess. I can be a "class and a half" illusionist-bard in C&C, and it means something. I chose that to start, and I will be that all the way.

In many ways, C&C is not an OSR game, but an entirely new one. It may share the math, combat, ability score, and other numbers of the OSR and remains compatible with the adventures there, but the rest of the game is brand-new and so different that what it throws out defines the game. Just the best parts, the character classes, spells, magic items, and monsters, are kept, and all the reference charts are thrown out. 5E would do well to copy C&C more and start throwing out huge sections of the rules, starting with the multitude of action types.

Many parts of 5E serve no good purpose other than to slow down gameplay and require constant rules reference, serving the game designer's hubris and need to force players into a book rather than into a live, immersive world and real-time decision loop. This is one of the flaws of Dungeon Crawl Classics; the game needs the core book's charts as training wheels to create an authentic old-school experience.

I love DCC, and the charts are the only way to communicate to today's players "what it all was about" back in the day. But for those of us who were there, we don't need the charts and find them limiting on our imaginations, which go far beyond what can be printed in these books.

5E is a different type of game. It is designed for competitive play and those who need rules to manage the insecurity of playing with complete strangers. Honestly, Pathfinder 2 does a better job providing rules frameworks for social play, and 5E is sort of a middling game that tries to be everything to everyone.

5E requires you to flip through the book for every action attempted, forcing you to check action types, see if different things combo, and taking you out of the game world and putting you in the rules world on almost every turn of play. Your mind is 10% in the dungeon and 90% living in a book outside the game. You could make the argument that 5E is not a role-playing game, but a 1970s wargame with roleplay elements. 5E is closer to Advanced Squad Leader than it is to Dungeons & Dragons.

In C&C? My character sheet is in front of me. A list of class abilities and spells is there for me to consider. I have my equipment and weapons. My ability scores are ready to use. That's it. I am "on the metal" with my decision tree. I do not need to open the book or check action types to figure out my next turn or plan of attack. The game doesn't have "infinite cantrips," so spells are rare and powerful.

What I have on my character sheet is it. No rulebook is going to save me or define my actions on a turn.

What I see is what I have.

Otherwise, I am immersed in the world and must pay attention.

If my druid casts entangling vegetation on a group of goblins, I may just rule as a C&C referee (Castle Keeper) that the encounter ends if the druid flees, and just "give them that." Single-use spells should be ruled more powerful and narratively impactful. That spell is once per day; give the incantation its due.

Spells in C&C and old-school games are magic.

In 5E? I need to sit there and make rolls to escape every turn, follow the rules to the letter, and play this out to "maximum rules coverage." I could make that old-school ruling in 5E, but by the letter of the rules, the game defaults to rules-based simulation more than to storytelling. Spells you can get back on a short rest, or fire off on every turn? Really, they don't mean as much anymore and have far less impact on the narrative.

Spells in 5E are powers.

Note the subtle difference there, as it means a lot.

The legacy of Wizards of the Coast and the influence of Magic: The Gathering on the D&D's design is clear. The experience is less a role-playing game and more one that relies heavily on rules and tournament-style play. Modern D&D is rules over immersion.

C&C is a game that tells you, get your nose out of the book, stop endlessly trying to cheat the game's rules, stay engaged, stay immersed in the world, and keep making in-character choices. Shadowdark is very similar, and this is why that game does so well. Players stay engaged and in character. Nobody is stuck in a book, finding a rule or chart. The referee and players can use their imaginations to create "the old school flavor and immersion." If something old-school and strange happens, it will be because of someone's imagination, the referee saying "that's cool, allowed," and not a random chart result.

The more a game expects you to stick your nose in a book, the less fun it is.

But some players will say, "But I like the extra rules!" To which I will say, "I don't care." C&C is rules-light, but it has enough rules to cover everything that it doesn't feel like a traditional rules-light game. Every rule, skill roll, saving throw, class ability, and situation is covered by the game's fallback system, the SIEGE Engine. It all comes back to your ability scores, making them matter again.

With the Player's Guide 2 drop, the book is sort of worthless to me until I have this on the Shard Tabletop, "so I can start using it." This is the world you get stuck in with 5E. A book isn't "real" unless you own a digital copy somewhere to use on a paid character designer. And you are forced to buy it twice. It is nice to read ahead and plan a few builds, but the book's arrival in PDF form is a non-event beyond reading material. I am so dependent on Shard that until I can "pay for it again there," the book is meaningless.

With 5E, it is always, "Did you pay for it twice?" No? Well, then, you can't use it.

We are so used to the rip-off that we can't see it anymore.

I like 5E, but the forced computerized character sheets are terrible. The 5E business model is exploitative and sucks, and it approaches insurance company levels of terrible. ToV is the best 5E clone out there, but still, there are moments when I wonder why I even bother. It is a good game, but the hobby is in a sad state. Still, I will likely buy this again on Shard, since I support them.

With C&C? No character designer needed. I can go back to my OGL books, pull in classes there, and use them, or combine them in multiclass builds. All my old books are perfectly usable, even with Reforged. People without Reforged can play in the same game; it is just a handful of name changes, and all the old books are 100% compatible. Reforged did a better job "cleaning the game" than Pathfinder 2 did with the Remaster, where parts of the world felt like they were lobotomized and entire races removed from the world.

Having the ToV Player's Guide 2 PDF is nice, but I really don't "have" it until I pay again somewhere. It is another "book of rules" which will slow down the game. The options are great, but the design is still inferior to a game designed to play "reference-free." Where 5E is the Blackberry with the physical keyboard and clunky design, C&C is still the iPhone with a minimalist design but high ease of use.

With C&C, all I need to do is own a book to use it.

Mail Room: Player's Guide 2 (ToV)

The Player's Guide 2 was released today for backers, and I am enjoying this. More soon.

Off the Shelf: Tales of the Valiant

One of the things that I love about Tales of the Valiant is that it is a drama-free version of the fifth edition. I can play with all my fifth edition books and never need a physical copy of either the 2014 or 2024 Dungeons & Dragons. I own my PDFs, and I do not need to sign up for a website to have an electronic copy at hand or on my phone. It makes it easy to support the 10-year legacy of great products for the 2014 D&D.

Everything works. People complained that the game offered nothing new, but there are plenty of balance improvements and other tweaks to the system that significantly improve the quality of life. The game is designed to be easy to teach and learn. All the exploits are fixed. I don't need to patch the game with a later book, as all the fixes are in the player's guide and ready to use.

Inspiration or luck? Whatever you want to use, plenty of people prefer the luck system to the inspiration system. You could use both if you wished, but luck is enough. I like the luck system in Tales of the Valiant because it does not require a game master to grant inspiration. A player can manage the system on their own, occasionally receiving bonus luck points from the game master if they want. This speeds up play by giving players a trackable resource without gaming the inspiration system or exploiting role-playing for mechanical gain. One of the most annoying things about 5E is when players constantly try to take advantage of the inspiration system to gain an unfair advantage.

I have a library of my best-of-the-best fifth edition books on my shelves, and Tales of the Valiant runs everything without me needing a single book from Wizards of the Coast. It's zero drama, and I don't get constantly sucked into D&D YouTube, watching the latest drama videos posted by that clickbait crowd over there. I understand that clicks pay the bills, but at one point, I just get so tired of it all, watching the outrage of what the company did this time, and I stop caring altogether. I don't have any time, energy, or emotion left to spend on the stupid things a Wall Street company does.

I want to play a game that works without drama.

Tales of the Valiant also does not insult old-school players. Orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, gnolls, and all the other classic humanoid monster creatures are in the Monster Vault. They were removed from D&D due to fake Twitter outrage by people who likely don't play the game. I want the real world removed from my games as much as possible, and I enter my fantasy world to enjoy the adventures there.

Being reminded of current-day social strife is the last thing I want when I'm playing my fantasy game.

We left a silly few years of history, and we are living with the damage. I want a game that is made for the fans. Tales of the Valiant does not go out of its way to anger people. There are some admittedly progressive nods in ToV, and I understand and support them. But the designers realize that people love how the game was, and that experience should be preserved and supported.

Tales of the Valiant feels like playing Windows games on Linux while sidestepping Microsoft and our AI overlords. I can support the game companies I like, protect my privacy and freedom, not hand money to Microsoft as they sell my personal data, and own my hardware all at once. With Wizards and D&D Beyond, the AI is coming, and I want to own my PDFs, characters, campaigns, and ideas without having them fed to the digital beast.

I can create ToV characters on the Shard Tabletop and even print character sheets. Everything D&D does, I can do here, and I can own my digital copies. Not changing the game too much from 2014 D&D is a feature, not a problem. If you want a completely different game, play Shadowdark, Draw Steel, Dragonbane, or Daggerheart. If you wish to play something slightly different, play Level Up A5E.

Now, I have a choice when playing 5E.

I am making an informed and ethical one.

This is not just about anger, either. I enjoy the design of Tales the Valiant far more than I do either 2014 or 2024 Dungeons & Dragons. Everything that I like about the fifth edition is here, cleaned up, ready to go, and fun. Everything on my shelves works without change. All of the dumb exploits are fixed, which I understand makes some people angry, but I don't like having to sit there and ban exploits. All the money I spent on books for the fifth edition can be used and enjoyed, and I can get my money back without having them sit in my garage and storage crates. 

There isn't too much wrong with the fifth edition; my biggest complaint is that characters are too invincible and heal too quickly. This is easily fixed with a few mods. I can tune this game to run exactly like an OSR game with just a few minor changes. The game can be just as deadly as I would like it to be with just a handful of tweaks and adjustments. I can enjoy the in-depth character builds and the progression without having to abandon the game and feel I wasted my money on my entire fifth edition library.

I like Tales the Valiant and keep it on my shelves. The money I have spent on the fifth edition will not be wasted, and I will get the gameplay I bought.