Announcement

Collapse

New Server

RoninArmy.com now lives on a new server! Due to a communication mixup with our hosting company, some posts made around November 3, 2019 might have been overwritten. We apologize for the inconvenience. If anything seems off or doesn't work any more (or if anything works better now), we'd like to hear about it. Thanks!
See more
See less

Faces of Thedas Update

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ezequielramone
    replied
    Re: Faces of Thedas Update

    I just could pre order it on Amazon. So happy finally I'll get the book. I'm planning to run a campaign based on DA: Origins and this book will be a great tool for me
    Last edited by ezequielramone; 11th March 2019, 06:09 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • shonuff
    replied
    Re: Faces of Thedas Update

    Originally posted by Parsival View Post
    Gosh, dropping your pre-order sounds quite drastic! I'll accept that the book isn't perfect and there are a couple of obvious ommissions, but from what I've heard it will still be well worth getting. I just wish it would appear on Amazon as available - in the UK it is still listed as July 9th!
    Why is that drastic? If you’re not happy with a product, you shouldn’t be obligated to buy it. And if it turns out to be worthwhile, there’s nothing to stop the poster from buying it upon release.

    And I wouldn’t say the inclusion or non-inclusion falls on BioWare in the slightest. There was just a Roundtable that was written about why some characters were or weren't included.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parsival
    replied
    Re: Faces of Thedas Update

    Originally posted by Jindex View Post
    Just dropped my amazon pre-order.
    Gosh, dropping your pre-order sounds quite drastic! I'll accept that the book isn't perfect and there are a couple of obvious ommissions, but from what I've heard it will still be well worth getting. I just wish it would appear on Amazon as available - in the UK it is still listed as July 9th!

    I wouldn't blame Green Ronin for all the shenanigans regarding the DA license - Bioware's attitude towards approving product is on the listless side. Remember that Bioware can't even be bothered to license a Mass Effect pen-and-paper game, even though games companies would love to release one. There used to be a time that Bioware were claiming they'd like to develop the Dragon Age world into a true 'franchise' through various media. I approached them myself regarding getting a range of miniature figures released and no-one ever got back to me. I know the money from such is small fry to them - as it is from Green Ronin's RPG - but it's virtually money for nothing and is effectively free advertising and marketing. Bioware is not blameless here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jindex
    replied
    Re: Faces of Thedas Update

    Thanks for the info everyone. Just dropped my amazon pre-order. How could a something so long in the making have so many horrible omissions? Where was the QA on this thing? I really feel like the license is not in capable hands. I'm happy knowing most of the fan made creations and supplements easily outclass and replace this. I'm glad there is such a great community of material that I really don't feel sad for dropping the order. Just slightly disappointed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hulahn
    replied
    Re: Faces of Thedas Update

    Originally posted by shonuff View Post
    I’d like to see both of those, as well. However, given Solas’s Place in the setting, I don’t see him as a possibility. And for Corpheus, I imagine for tabletop purposes you could reskin the Architect. That wouldn’t be perfect, but it could be close.

    The point of the guide, IMO, is not to give every character, but to give enough of them to enable you to adapt as necessary. That’s why I think Shale and Fenrir are the bigger losses.
    I totally agree, on both points.

    Shale and Fenris should have been included, hands-down. To give the option to play as a golem, specifically, and include all of the talents, stunts, and/or specializations necessary to do so would have been a huge win for players. When I started working on my first campaign, I spent a great deal of time stat'ing out and building Shale as a playable option, and while I feel I hit the high notes, an "official" entry for such a prominent character would have been a great addition to this book.

    Unless, as others have said, these characters are slated to make an appearance in the upcoming DA4; in that case, I would look forward to this being the first of two FoT installments. If not, .PDFs dedicated specifically to Shale, inclusive of a playable golem option, and Fenris, including a playable lyrium-infused character, would be most welcomed.

    Leave a comment:


  • exdemon13
    replied
    Re: Faces of Thedas Update

    Are they going to address and fix Duncan in the PDF and reprints is my only question. That build has me and my whole group bristling. How and why they would build him as a warrior makes zero sense. And I hope they at least fix the PDF so we can have a proper build for him. Seriously, did they never read the codexes or the books or pay attention to origins or heroes of dragon age or any of the other source material. We are under the option that they must have built the character as if they were building Riordan. The other issues we had were with Oghren & Iron Bull's specializations. But at least those are quicker fixes.

    Leave a comment:


  • PlatinumWarlock
    replied
    Re: Faces of Thedas Update

    So, this was just posted to the GR main page, and it appears that someone's listening to the criticism here.

    I can grok the concept of being unable to use certain characters--Solas is probably top of that list, given the focus of the forthcoming DA4--but I still feel like much of the response comes down to "we felt like doing this character" more than sticking to a given focus on the book.

    But, simultaneously, there's something telling in having a character like Vivienne missing. Maybe it's just me, but she seems to tick all of the boxes that would make a worthy inclusion:
    • A playable party member
    • Occult advisor to the Empress
    • Head of one of the Circles of Magi
    • Potentially either 1) The Divine, or 2) the head of the College of Enchanters
    • Mistress to one of the Council of Heralds


    She's the sort of character that could have been rival, antagonist, temporary ally, quest-giver and more--the perfect sort of character for a book of this sort, right? Nowhere to be seen.

    I know I said this about 15 times on the Wonders of Thedas podcast, but Faces of Thedas seems to be at every turn a victim of opportunity cost. With such a huge cast in the DA games, you can't have a book that covers *everybody*, so choices have to be made at some point. To me, inclusion of characters like Marjolaine, the Feddics, and Yvette are symptoms of this greater issue: including characters like these means leaving out someone more fitting. Could Yvette not have been a sidebar in Josephine's entry? It's all well and good that Jack likes her--though I might question the idea of her as romantic foil, given that we have precisely one conversation with her over the course of all DA lore--but I'm sure those two pages could have been devoted to someone like Orsino or Samson, who could serve as a quest-giver and/or adversary. Could Marjolaine not have been fit into Leliana's section? Did we really need to rehash The Architect/The Mother/The Archdemon when we're leaving out major adversaries from both DA2 and DA:I? It's an opportunity lost, in my eyes.

    This may come out harsher than I mean it to, but I'm somewhat glad that I didn't pay "real money" for FoT. I had enough publisher credit built up that I was able to buy the PDF on DriveThruRPG using that, rather than cash. If I had been looking at FoT as a book of adversaries, I'd be disappointed. If I'd be looking at FoT as a listing of the major players in Thedas, I'd be disappointed. If I'd been looking at FoT as a listing of all the companions and allies, I'd be disappointed. As it is, we got something in the middle that didn't really satisfy any of those categories for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • ezequielramone
    replied
    Re: Faces of Thedas Update

    I received and e-mail from amazon saying it was available. But when I saw the e-mail two hours later it was not available for purchase. I live in Argentina and really Amazon is the only affordable way to get RPG books. Does anyone knows when it is going to be on amazon?
    Thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • dareKITTY
    replied
    Re: Faces of Thedas Update

    It came in the mail today! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!

    Leave a comment:


  • PlatinumWarlock
    replied
    Re: Faces of Thedas Update

    Originally posted by Parsival View Post
    I'm glad to see Marjolaine is included - I think she makes an excellent antagonist or patron, particularly in pre-5th Blight campaigns. I suppose that the plan had been to publish an Inquisition era sourcebook at some point which would include Samson, Calpurnia, et al. I guess it still could happen, though pondering such might be best kept to another thread.
    I agree that Marjolaine is a worthy inclusion, but at what opportunity cost?

    That space that went to her could have been used for any number of more prominent NPCs; can anyone really make the argument that she's somehow more notable of an adversary or more important than Samson, Orsino, or Corypheus?

    If the plan shifted away from doing an Inquisition sourcebook, towards including such characters here, Marjolaine would likely have been among my first cuts. Likely in the tier right below Yvette...

    Leave a comment:


  • Parsival
    replied
    Re: Faces of Thedas Update

    I'm glad to see Marjolaine is included - I think she makes an excellent antagonist or patron, particularly in pre-5th Blight campaigns. I suppose that the plan had been to publish an Inquisition era sourcebook at some point which would include Samson, Calpurnia, et al. I guess it still could happen, though pondering such might be best kept to another thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • shonuff
    replied
    Re: Faces of Thedas Update

    Also, I wonder if the core book reprints have been updated in a meaningful way.

    Leave a comment:


  • shonuff
    replied
    Re: Faces of Thedas Update

    There probably could have been more, but there’s the section on relationships... which feels out of place in a setting book, but had to go somewhere to bring DAGE up to BRAGE.

    Leave a comment:


  • selderane
    replied
    Re: Faces of Thedas Update

    Originally posted by PlatinumWarlock View Post
    I get that there's no pleasing 'everyone' in a book like this, but when we've waited for so long for the book, when the only blurb we had access to promised a legion of "fan-favorite companions" and "deadly antagonists", the choices made here seem increasingly suspect. To be honest, I feel like so much of the planning for this book was slapshod that I find myself dropping from an "instant-buy" into disapproving skepticism.
    I'm beginning to regret my pre-order. All this time and this is what we're left with? Your criticism is dead on - the choices for inclusion and exclusion make no sense.

    I'm very close to canceling my pre-order, except it kind of feels I get screwed on the deal...

    Leave a comment:


  • PlatinumWarlock
    replied
    Re: Faces of Thedas Update

    I guess therein lies the question: what was the focus of the titular 'Faces' in Faces of Thedas?

    If the idea is to stat up the major players of the three DA games, then the omission of characters like Solas, Fenris, Blackwall, and Shale are really large omissions. The idea that someone like Yvette or Marjolaine gets a full stat block, while actual party-NPCs and major adversaries get overlooked seems odd to me. Why not Florienne? Why not Samson or Calpernia? Do we really need stats for Bodahn and Sandal--characters that would likely never see active combat--while we're skipping The Arishok and First Enchanter Orsino (both as himself and as a Harvester Demon)? And not a single member of the Hawke family?

    If the idea of FoT was to focus on quest-giving NPCs and adversaries for our heroes, why include most of the party-NPCs at all? Why not Delrin Barris or some of the Inquisition agents like Charter or Lord Edouard? Stats for Venatori, for Red Lyrium Templars and horrors/shadows/behemoths, would certainly be welcome as enemies, along with the aforementioned Samson and Calpernia, to say nothing of Corypheus himself. Where are all the new demon types? Where's Gereon Alexius or Fairbanks and the Freemen of the Dales?

    For that matter, why was time and space spent rehashing stats for The Archdemon, the Architect, and The Mother? All three of them are already in the corebook...

    I get that there's no pleasing 'everyone' in a book like this, but when we've waited for so long for the book, when the only blurb we had access to promised a legion of "fan-favorite companions" and "deadly antagonists", the choices made here seem increasingly suspect. To be honest, I feel like so much of the planning for this book was slapshod that I find myself dropping from an "instant-buy" into disapproving skepticism.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X