Project Black Flag playtest has begun!

[Jervis]

The first playtest packet for Black Flag, Kobold press’s new rpg based on the CC version of the 5.1 SRD, has dropped. It covers the first steps of character creation, primarily race and background. They found a pretty interesting solution to the culture problem of removing features of races by splitting the 5e character race option into lineage (character species effectively) and heritage (culture you grew up in). Cultural features like weapon training and learned abilities go in the latter. It’s pretty elegant all things considered. Backgrounds are similar to the dndone playtest in that they give a feat, renamed talent here, but don’t effect stats. They skipped the obfuscation here and just gave everyone a +2 and +1 to put wherever though notably it’s impossible to go above 18 in any stat at character Gen even with rolled stats. I’d like to hear thoughts on this.

I wasn’t sure if this was a better fit for the general role playing game forum or the 5e forum since black flag is primarily a 5e++ from what we’ve seen so far, but I decided to leave it here.

[stoutstien]

Figured i get the ball rolling on it

At a glance the layout is nice for playtest. clear wording and easy to read.

Talents look a lot better than feats thus far.

Adventuring motivations are a nice touch to flesh out a concept.

I'm going print it out later to give it a fine comb through tonight.

[Brookshw]

Just skimmed through it. Very early stages, but at the moment, its just 5e with a few names changed. I'm disappointed, but, it's early, we'll see where they land. Also, guess I can't blame them for wanting to keep it 5e compatible, makes their legacy stuff still viable and gives them access to WoTC's markets.

[stoutstien]

Just skimmed through it. Very early stages, but at the moment, its just 5e with a few names changed. I'm disappointed, but, it's early, we'll see where they land. Also, guess I can't blame them for wanting to keep it 5e compatible, makes their legacy stuff still viable and gives them access to WoTC's markets.

There some subtle changes that are mostly quality of play improvements IMO. Taking all three "get better armor Prof" feats and writing them into a single feature that is much easier to read and explain. It's early yet but they are winning the layout game.

[Tanarii]

since black flag is primarily a 5e++ from what we’ve seen so far,Well that's disappointing

[Rynjin]

Yeah, that's a big meh from me unfortunately.

[Jervis]

There some subtle changes that are mostly quality of play improvements IMO. Taking all three "get better armor Prof" feats and writing them into a single feature that is much easier to read and explain. It's early yet but they are winning the layout game.
I can’t believe it took someone THIS LONG to word the armor prof feat sensibly. The way it’s worded you even benefit if you’re in that awkward situation of having medium and light armor proficiency but no shield proficiency.

Well that's disappointing
Yeah, honestly it’s what I expected. I was expecting a legally distinct 5e with some bells and whistles attached and that’s probably what we’re getting. Classes might be a surprise though and i’m hoping we get some interesting shakeups.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Jervis
They found a pretty interesting solution to the culture problem of removing features of races by splitting the 5e character race option into lineage (character species effectively) and heritage (culture you grew up in). Cultural features like weapon training and learned abilities go in the latter. It’s pretty elegant all things considered.

I like the sound of this, will be interested to see how it’s implemented.


Originally Posted by Tanarii
Well that's disappointing….


Originally Posted by Rynjin
Yeah, that's a big meh from me unfortunately.

If not 5E, what were the hopes for this? Something more 3.PFish, or an entirely new approach?

[Rynjin]

"Something new", yeah. I'd assumed it would have some 5e DNA, as it's the style at the time...but if Black Flag is just going to be the Pathfinder equivalent for 5e...pass.

[Just to Browse]

(I am migrating my hot takes to the other thread)

[KorvinStarmast]

There's another thread here. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654138-Project-Black-Flag-playtest-has-begun!)

[Kane0]

I'll keep an eye on it, if it turns out to be a better base than 5e or D&Done then shifting to it with my own changes wont be hard.

[PhoenixPhyre]

"Something new", yeah. I'd assumed it would have some 5e DNA, as it's the style at the time...but if Black Flag is just going to be the Pathfinder equivalent for 5e...pass.

That's all it really promised to be.

--------

My initial take--conflicted.
1. Positive: I like the lineage + heritage approach and have actually gone somewhat that way myself.
2. Negative: They seem very fixated still on "magic uber alles". The magic heritage traits are leaps and bounds better than the non-magic ones. And are a major buff above the existing 5e counterparts, where the non-magic ones are only a tiny buff (more a clarification).

[Easy e]

More D&D with a different name?

I guess they are leaning into what they know, and I honestly think that is a good idea.

[Just to Browse]

(Moving some comments from the other thread since we should def only have one, thanks Korvin)

Thoughts from a first look:

Rundown (trying to avoid bias)
Unsurprisingly, this looks most like like D&D 5e with houserules added & serial numbers removed. That was mostly confirmed based on KP's description of Deep Magic 2, but I think it's worth noting. We can see evidence that KP will retain most (perhaps all) of the original skills, the concept of hit dice, short / long rests, spell schools, and the original action economy. High odds that they will keep most of the other rules infrastructure as well.

Race / species is now "Lineage" and "Heritage". Lineage is your standard race stuff, generally pretty anemic (elves have magic sleep resistance and Perception prf, dwarves have +1 HP and poison resistance, humans have a skill and a feat talent). Your Heritage is the equivalent of a subrace, but can be mixed & matched between any races. So the default is Cloud Elf and Stone Dwarf, but you can make a Stone Elf / Cloud Dwarf.

Backgrounds are still in. They now grant a feat talent from some pre-set list.

Talents are the replacement for feats, and work identically to 5th edition's feats. They're placed in 3 categories:
Magic: features related to using spells, or getting affected by spells
Martial: features related to fighting
Technical: non-combat features
Hot Takes (very biased)

Overall, not particularly impressed or disappointed.

The species-replacement rules seem about as adequate as any other species-replacement houserules I've seen on the internet. The most common criticism I've levied at biology+culture rules like these is that culture blurs into background a little too easily. We can see that in KP's packet with the human cultures, where being a Cosmopolitan Soldier or Nomadic Scholar is possible but a Scholarly Soldier or a Cosmopolitan Nomad is not. This issue is almost certainly going to become more pronounced as we see more content.

One big win: I love that they are explicit about this being a magical setting, and discourage low-magic games. Love love love to see that. If your RPG system requires excising a bunch of material to run your setting, use a different system! *glares at Broken Weave*

2 big concerns:

Bounded Accuracy: Seeing the +1 bonuses from Armored Combatant and School Specialization spook me a little. The infrastructure of 5e relies heavily on bounded accuracy, and the fact that we already see multiple +1 effects makes me think that Black Flag talents will have little bonuses frequently scattered within. Combined with their faster content release cadence, this could (emphasis on could -- I am speculating here!) make optimization in Black Flag all about the tiny +1 bonuses. Obviously it's too early to draw definitive conclusions, but I would be much happier if Black Flag talents had their power budget allocated into interesting combat patterns, instead of static bonuses.

Technical Talents: One thing I was really hoping for was a structural examination & expansion of other pillars of play. Wrapping all of the non-combat possibilities into a single category of "non-combat" talents (the use of which is mutually exclusive with combat-centric talents) doesn't give me much hope. I at least appreciate that they're labeling all these talents, so I can tell easily tell new players to ignore them and/or reference them when I'm handing out free ribbons.

Also I cannot emphasize enough just how bad it is for a talent that rewards you for not adventuring. No no no! Do not do this! That isn't just a bad choice, it explicitly mis-aligns the party's incentives! aaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAA

[Tanarii]

If not 5E, what were the hopes for this? Something more 3.PFish, or an entirely new approach?


That's all it really promised to be.
The impression I'd gotten was it was going to be an all new RPG.

(Edit: Moving remaining commentary to the OGL thread.)

[stoutstien]

There's another thread here. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654138-Project-Black-Flag-playtest-has-begun!)

Yea they were started almost at once I'll ping for a merger.

[stoutstien]

That's all it really promised to be.

--------

My initial take--conflicted.
1. Positive: I like the lineage + heritage approach and have actually gone somewhat that way myself.
2. Negative: They seem very fixated still on "magic uber alles". The magic heritage traits are leaps and bounds better than the non-magic ones. And are a major buff above the existing 5e counterparts, where the non-magic ones are only a tiny buff (more a clarification).

I feel this. They have a great opportunity to reset the whole magic issue and still be backwards capable with 5e. I'll push for it myself and if it looks promising I'll probably buy into it.

On the positive note they tend to be very active in feedback response data.

[Brookshw]

The impression I'd gotten was it was going to be an all new RPG.



This. KP does some fantastic stuff and I think has a great eye for interesting mechanics, I was excited to see what they'd come up with for a core system. If it's just 5e with the names filed off and minor tweaks, I'm sure it'll be fine but it's not going to be a huge draw for me.

[Jervis]

This. KP does some fantastic stuff and I think has a great eye for interesting mechanics, I was excited to see what they'd come up with for a core system. If it's just 5e with the names filed off and minor tweaks, I'm sure it'll be fine but it's not going to be a huge draw for me.

In their defense I can see why they would want to stick with a 5e infrastructure. Most of their catalog from the last few years has been 5e content so competing with themselves is a bit of a concern if the two are any less compatible than, say, 3.5 and pathfinder 1E. That said I hope we see some shakeups in the class department and other rulesets. Something like fixing the dang subclass system for example so every subclass doesn’t have to shoehorn in features of roughly equivalent power at the exact same levels. Maybe adding some new magic rules or including a interesting setting in the final product.

[animorte]

Also, guess I can't blame them for wanting to keep it 5e compatible, makes their legacy stuff still viable and gives them access to WoTC's markets.

There some subtle changes that are mostly quality of play improvements IMO... It's early yet but they are winning the layout game.

Yeah, honestly it’s what I expected. I was expecting a legally distinct 5e with some bells and whistles attached and that’s probably what we’re getting.
This is pretty much what I expected. Makes sense.


Thoughts from a first look:
Thanks for your breakdown.

I'm looking forward to whatever direction they choose to explore for classes and the like.

[BRC]

Looks like about what I would expect if you start with 5e and have about a month to throw something together.

[Sparky McDibben]

Looks like about what I would expect if you start with 5e and have about a month to throw something together.

They started this last summer, bro.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yea they were started almost at once I'll ping for a merger.
Yeah, I saw that and only suggested the merge with that one because it had a few more replies than this one. Glad you all brought this to our attention. :smallsmile:

[EggKookoo]

They started this last summer, bro.

I wonder how often they had to go back an edit out "feat" and replace it with "talent" in their manuscripts.

[Tanarii]

They started this last summer, bro.
They announced it in early January.


Looks like about what I would expect if you start with 5e and have about a month to throw something together.17 days. That's how long since 5e SRD was released under Creative Commons.

[Just to Browse]

KP claimed (https://koboldpress.com/project-black-flag-update-sticking-to-our-principles/) that one of the senior game designers had been working on Project Black Flag since last year.


Celeste Conowitch, our Senior Game Designer, is the lead on game design for this new fantasy RPG. She has been working on Project Black Flag behind the scenes since the summer of 2022. Additional designers and developers are currently engaged with the project, as well as several partners from the community. We will have more announcements on the creative team and project partners soon.

That said, "working on" is vague. Maybe Conowitch was just messing around with houserules for spellcasting, maybe she rewrote only the classes so all the lineage stuff is still last-minute, or maybe she was just creating a bunch of variations on mementori mori part 2: it's a martial maneuver this time for the fighter or whatever.

[Sparky McDibben]

KP claimed (https://koboldpress.com/project-black-flag-update-sticking-to-our-principles/) that one of the senior game designers had been working on Project Black Flag since last year.

Thanks for posting the link!

[Atranen]

KP claimed (https://koboldpress.com/project-black-flag-update-sticking-to-our-principles/) that one of the senior game designers had been working on Project Black Flag since last year.



That said, "working on" is vague. Maybe Conowitch was just messing around with houserules for spellcasting, maybe she rewrote only the classes so all the lineage stuff is still last-minute, or maybe she was just creating a bunch of variations on mementori mori part 2: it's a martial maneuver this time for the fighter or whatever.

She has credits on (https://celesteconowitch.com/game-design/) a half dozen KP titles that came out in 2022, so my guess is that she was working on PBF as one of many projects (with an eye towards positioning KP well following the release of OneD&D) and it kicked into high gear with the OGL announcement.

[False God]

5E wasn't my cup of tea to begin with, though it was an enjoyable romp in simple and low-powered (relative to other editions) for a while, but that grew stale, and I have no love for WotC at this time.

So I've got no real interest in "5E, but with someone else's branding."

I was VERY much looking forward to a new game, or at least a fresh take.

[Jervis]

5E wasn't my cup of tea to begin with, though it was an enjoyable romp in simple and low-powered (relative to other editions) for a while, but that grew stale, and I have no love for WotC at this time.

So I've got no real interest in "5E, but with someone else's branding."

I was VERY much looking forward to a new game, or at least a fresh take.

I feel ya. WotC made it pretty clear they have contempt for their fanbase and at this point I don’t plan on supporting them anymore. 5e isn’t the main game I play anyways but a lot of people like it and I’d rather play something from another company that’s familiar enough for them to understand

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Threads merged.

[Dalinar]

Being as backward-compatible as possible with 5e does seem to limit the possibilities.

I like that they took Tasha's ASIs to its logical conclusion and just rolled what was formerly race ASIs into regular stat generation. Having a relatively limited "nature" (in the "versus nurture" sense) factor when it comes to how a character's origins shape their abilities seems generally in line with how people's preferences are evolving.

I think it's really hard to tell what game balance is going to look like due to not having class information yet. Usually class is the biggest source of a character's power. That said, wow are the technical talents weak compared to the magical/martial ones. And the Cloud Elf Heritage granting access to a third-level spell made me double-take.

There's also a really weird detail in that one of the talents grants unarmed strike proficiency; characters all already have this in 5e's PHB. (Granted, I don't know if that detail made it into the SRD.)

All that said, this seems relatively early, so I suspect there'll be plenty of time to iterate out some things. I appreciate that they're even trying; taking down the D&D Goliath must be a daunting prospect. On the other hand, I'd like to see a bit more ambition from Kobold as this progresses.

[Speely]

^^ Polyglot is one of the two revealed Technical Talents and it is bonkers-good. On a face, this is like the equivalent of a permanent social Faerie Fire going on your targets where the save DC is just "do they speak X language as a primary language?"

[Jervis]

I thought I had mentioned it already but I think the Stone heritage is one of the better ones, maybe better than cloud depending on how spell balance shakes out. Light and Medium armor profs are nothing to sneeze at especially when one talent you can take at level 1 then gives you shields and heavy armor. A potential heavy armor wizard sounds hilarious

[stoutstien]

^^ Polyglot is one of the two revealed Technical Talents and it is bonkers-good. On a face, this is like the equivalent of a permanent social Faerie Fire going on your targets where the save DC is just "do they speak X language as a primary language?"

Depending on how they handle skills overall it can be really nice.

On another note I'm a little annoyed they used this word because it is identical to a similar feature in my game... Eh 'm not changing it. That and polymath are fun words

[EggKookoo]

Depending on how they handle skills overall it can be really nice.

On another note I'm a little annoyed they used this word because it is identical to a similar feature in my game... Eh 'm not changing it. That and polymath are fun words

I have a feeling "polymath" is going to rapidly become a word I find tiresome. Can't exactly explain why...

[stoutstien]

I have a feeling "polymath" is going to rapidly become a word I find tiresome. Can't exactly explain why...

I fell that. I have the same reaction to Jack of all trades which is what I replaced with polymath

[Just to Browse]

^^ Polyglot is one of the two revealed Technical Talents and it is bonkers-good. On a face, this is like the equivalent of a permanent social Faerie Fire going on your targets where the save DC is just "do they speak X language as a primary language?"

That's gonna depend heavily on the expected value of social checks. Faerie fire is valuable in 5e because stabbing things is a viable plan for handling the vast majority or problems in the combat pillar. You also get valuable synergy because "on-hit" requirements are pretty common for powerful abilities (like paladin smites, or scorching ray, disintegrate). In contrast, this feat only works for you, only works for non-hostile creatures (you're not going to talk enemies down from a fight any better), doesn't synergize with any particular mechanics, can't be used on humans most of the time, and applies to arguably the least robust pillar of gameplay.

Unless KP is planning to add significant support for social pillars, I see this talent being even less valuable than the 5e ranger's Favored Terrain. At least Favored Terrain mostly trivializes elements of exploration, so there's some meta-level certainty that you know you will be useful in the rare case where your feature ever comes up. This talent just gives advantage.

Obligatory: Maybe KP will add a bunch of rules infrastructure that expand the social pillar of play, making social checks more valuable because the rewards for success & penalties for failure are better-codified. But I wouldn't hold my breath there.

[Speely]

That's gonna depend heavily on the expected value of social checks. Faerie fire is valuable in 5e because stabbing things is a viable plan for handling the vast majority or problems in the combat pillar. You also get valuable synergy because "on-hit" requirements are pretty common for powerful abilities (like paladin smites, or scorching ray, disintegrate). In contrast, this feat only works for you, only works for non-hostile creatures (you're not going to talk enemies down from a fight any better), doesn't synergize with any particular mechanics, can't be used on humans most of the time, and applies to arguably the least robust pillar of gameplay.

Unless KP is planning to add significant support for social pillars, I see this talent being even less valuable than the 5e ranger's Favored Terrain. At least Favored Terrain mostly trivializes elements of exploration, so there's some meta-level certainty that you know you will be useful in the rare case where your feature ever comes up. This talent just gives advantage.

Obligatory: Maybe KP will add a bunch of rules infrastructure that expand the social pillar of play, making social checks more valuable because the rewards for success & penalties for failure are better-codified. But I wouldn't hold my breath there.

This is fair. I guess I am used to playing at tables that lean heavily into RP and social interactions in general, so the Talent holds more weight for me in that regard... weight that is not necessarily provided by the mechanic in a vacuum.

[Pex]

Only had time for a quick glance. I like that Human gets a racial feature.

I like they do not believe it a crime against all of gamedom to have an 18 at first level. You can buy one with Point Buy, though you are highly specialized for it due to zero sum nature of Point Buy. (Not a complaint.) The Standard Array is nice too. However, it is unclear if you get the bonus +2/+1 when using Point Buy/Standard Array or if it's only if you roll. The +2/+1 is mentioned only in the dice rolling method and no hint of it is mentioned for the other options. The optimizer in me would want the +2/+1 to apply, but I can see thinking behind it if not in which case optimizer me would prefer Point Buy over Standard Array. With how the Point Buy is implemented I'm not so bothered if the +2/+1 does not apply.

[False God]

I feel ya. WotC made it pretty clear they have contempt for their fanbase and at this point I don’t plan on supporting them anymore. 5e isn’t the main game I play anyways but a lot of people like it and I’d rather play something from another company that’s familiar enough for them to understand

See, I'm more of the "If I'm gonna make everyone play a different game, it's gonna be a different game." So I'm probably gonna be running a lot more Co/NWoD and the like.

[Jervis]

Only had time for a quick glance. I like that Human gets a racial feature.

I like they do not believe it a crime against all of gamedom to have an 18 at first level. You can buy one with Point Buy, though you are highly specialized for it due to zero sum nature of Point Buy. (Not a complaint.) The Standard Array is nice too. However, it is unclear if you get the bonus +2/+1 when using Point Buy/Standard Array or if it's only if you roll. The +2/+1 is mentioned only in the dice rolling method and no hint of it is mentioned for the other options. The optimizer in me would want the +2/+1 to apply, but I can see thinking behind it if not in which case optimizer me would prefer Point Buy over Standard Array. With how the Point Buy is implemented I'm not so bothered if the +2/+1 does not apply.

The pointbuy ambiguity thing is probably a good thing to bring up in feedback, i’m not sure that was intentional. Good catch

[Brookshw]

New interview (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1739183538) (well, half is Deep Magic). Mostly soft ball questions and hype piece. Sounds like they're interested in ramping up martials, seems like they'll be pulling from their Book of Blades series and Tome of Heroes.

[Sparky McDibben]

"One of the goals is to make the game easier on the GM to run."

Definitely got my attention.

[stoutstien]

"One of the goals is to make the game easier on the GM to run."

Definitely got my attention.

Depends. I would say you could make 5e 10X the game with cut copy paste and a proper index.

OTOH if they mean "we want to try to structure it in a way where the DM doesn't worry about things like resources recovery, encounter balance, and such that's a red flag for me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Depends. I would say you could make 5e 10X the game with cut copy paste and a proper index.

OTOH if they mean "we want to try to structure it in a way where the DM doesn't worry about things like resources recovery, encounter balance, and such that's a red flag for me.

I agree with this. Both parts.

[Brookshw]

"One of the goals is to make the game easier on the GM to run."

Definitely got my attention.

I was surprised, this edition isn't super crunchy, I never thought of it as difficult to run. Certainly not in the way 3e could be with it's many balance issues.

[Tanarii]

"One of the goals is to make the game easier on the GM to run."

Definitely got my attention.
It's the easiest edition of D&D to run already, except possibly BECMI.

Easiest to prep too, if you're running linear adventures. Not so much for old school crawls or sandboxes tho.

[stoutstien]

It's the easiest edition of D&D to run already, except possibly BECMI.

Easiest to prep too, if you're running linear adventures. Not so much for old school crawls or sandboxes tho.


I was surprised, this edition isn't super crunchy, I never thought of it as difficult to run. Certainly not in the way 3e could be with it's many balance issues.

Give it to a brand new GM and ask them to find or adjudicate a few minor rules.

It's a wonderful system if you have experience but a disaster presenting itself. It's been out for what 10+ years now and people are still referring to rules or guidelines that don't actually exist (encounter thresholds), get confused by the build a NPC section, or struggle to find guild lines on range of hearing.

[Sparky McDibben]

I was surprised, this edition isn't super crunchy, I never thought of it as difficult to run. Certainly not in the way 3e could be with it's many balance issues.

It's not so much difficult to run, it's that it has a ton of holes you need to patch. Like Stealth. Most of us have been running the system so long we don't even think about it being a houserule, but Stealth is one of those fuzzy gray areas that requires a fair bit of "how does this work, exactly?"

That's one example; there are others, but I don't want to derail the thread. Suffice it to say that a system I don't have to patch sounds interesting, and a system that I can rely on to deliver interesting monsters and exciting combats (which is sort of Kobold's specialty) is one that I'm excited for.


It's the easiest edition of D&D to run already, except possibly BECMI.

Easiest to prep too, if you're running linear adventures. Not so much for old school crawls or sandboxes tho.

Ding, ding, ding! Guess which kinds of adventures I run!

[Brookshw]

It's not so much difficult to run, it's that it has a ton of holes you need to patch. Like Stealth. Most of us have been running the system so long we don't even think about it being a houserule, but Stealth is one of those fuzzy gray areas that requires a fair bit of "how does this work, exactly?" Ye...yes? Maybe? I mean, my first time with the rule set, I spent 10 minutes skimming the basics and one of my players handed me DoMM, and it worked fine. I guess if people are expecting a heavily crunch edition with elaborate and clear rules, its tricky? Dunno, maybe starting with AD&D, my default expectation is that stuff is flexible and needs to be made up as you go :smallconfused:


I can rely on to deliver interesting monsters and exciting combats (which is sort of Kobold's specialty) is one that I'm excited for. I'll take KP over WoTC's recent content, I hear ya!

[Jervis]

Depends. I would say you could make 5e 10X the game with cut copy paste and a proper index.

OTOH if they mean "we want to try to structure it in a way where the DM doesn't worry about things like resources recovery, encounter balance, and such that's a red flag for me.

The thing to me that would make 5e easier to run is to fix the adventuring day. As is all encounters must be balanced around resources that assume multiple encounters between 8 hour rests. That’s hard for some adventure structures to fit in. Ideally I’d like to see the resource system shift more towards a short rest system (the opposite of what dndone is doing frustratingly enough). In a perfect world the long rest resources take more than 8 hours to recover and most of combat relies on short rest recovery. But I know i’m probably in the minority

That said I think it’s probably just streamlining the rules structure a bit and adding indexing so the answer to things like “can I do X” is easier to find RAW.

[stoutstien]

The thing to me that would make 5e easier to run is to fix the adventuring day. As is all encounters must be balanced around resources that assume multiple encounters between 8 hour rests. That’s hard for some adventure structures to fit in. Ideally I’d like to see the resource system shift more towards a short rest system (the opposite of what dndone is doing frustratingly enough). In a perfect world the long rest resources take more than 8 hours to recover and most of combat relies on short rest recovery. But I know i’m probably in the minority

That said I think it’s probably just streamlining the rules structure a bit and adding indexing so the answer to things like “can I do X” is easier to find RAW.

better to gut that section of the DMG because it's a lie anyway within the framework. any attempt to codify it will stress the core.

If they really wanted to address some of the issues they should subtract rather than add:

-bonus action attacks need to be removed or moved where they built into the class/subclass/base progression. Same for stuff like GWM/SS.

-rework spells to be more time resource heavy (more rituals). Especially with higher level options. It's kinda inversed ATM.

-avoid weird corner exploits by avoiding overly restrictive languages. If you have an option to use a shield as a weapon/shove just do so without fiddly timing rules.

-if a spell makes the class don't make it a spell. I.e. spirit guardians would work better as a channel divinity for clerics or smite/find steed for pally.

- challenges need to evolve rather than progress as your level up. Tiers of threats need to be different not just bigger Numbers

-show .....your....math ... I don't care what you call a medium or hard DC give me the odds based on some form of easily perceivable reference point. And for goodness sake cover how multi-rolls progress works. They don't need a chapter on stats or standard statics. Just one or two more column in the table.

[Brookshw]

The thing to me that would make 5e easier to run is to fix the adventuring day. As is all encounters must be balanced around resources that assume multiple encounters between 8 hour rests. That’s hard for some adventure structures to fit in. Ideally I’d like to see the resource system shift more towards a short rest system (the opposite of what dndone is doing frustratingly enough). In a perfect world the long rest resources take more than 8 hours to recover and most of combat relies on short rest recovery. But I know i’m probably in the minority

Are you thinking across the board then for all classes? Sounds like you're inching towards more of a 4e approach.

[Pex]

They buffed recognizable feats with their talents. I wonder if they're purposefully moving away from half-feats. They're keeping ASI or Talent, but if you are giving up the ASI they want the Talent to be worth the cost.

[stoutstien]

They buffed recognizable feats with their talents. I wonder if they're purposefully moving away from half-feats. They're keeping ASI or Talent, but if you are giving up the ASI they want the Talent to be worth the cost.

Maybe but even with the buffs to the martial ones like HaM, the spell casting options are "cheaper" compared to delayed ASIs and are still stronger due to stacking impact.

[Sparky McDibben]

Maybe but even with the buffs to the martial ones like HaM, the spell casting options are "cheaper" compared to delayed ASIs and are still stronger due to stacking impact.

In the linked interview, Conowitch mentioned that making martials more interesting and varied was a big design goal for her. So I think the jury's still out on this.

[stoutstien]

In the linked interview, Conowitch mentioned that making martials more interesting and varied was a big design goal for her. So I think the jury's still out on this.

It's hard to make martials more interesting compared to magic that has no limits besides it "hasn't been printed yet" and as much as I respect KP they aren't immune to using spells to buff out splats.

It's early yet and so far at least the wording is good.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's hard to make martials more interesting compared to magic that has no limits besides it "hasn't been printed yet" and as much as I respect KP they aren't immune to using spells to buff out splats.

It's early yet and so far at least the wording is good.

I agree with this. Unbounded is hard to compete against.

[False God]

I agree with this. Unbounded is hard to compete against.

A big help would be allowing martials free access to all of the stuff that is normally gated behind feats, TWF, Cleave, Power Attack (I realize some of these aren't in 5e but my point remains).

Martial access to "cool stuff" is extremely restricted, with limited slots. If we were to frame "various ways martials could hit things" as spells, then a Martial only ever gets about 5 spells.

Imagine if a wizard only got 1 slot for 1 spell every other level!

[stoutstien]

A big help would be allowing martials free access to all of the stuff that is normally gated behind feats, TWF, Cleave, Power Attack (I realize some of these aren't in 5e but my point remains).

Martial access to "cool stuff" is extremely restricted, with limited slots. If we were to frame "various ways martials could hit things" as spells, then a Martial only ever gets about 5 spells.

Imagine if a wizard only got 1 slot for 1 spell every other level!

This approach works for a little bit but eventually you hit another tension point where you can't add more "martial" stuff but magic continues to grow on every axis.

I've seen it systems where the PCs are demigods right off the bat. Who cares if you can throw a mountain if the "wizard" can alter reality?

[PhoenixPhyre]

This approach works for a little bit but eventually you hit another tension point where you can't add more "martial" stuff but magic continues to grow on every axis.

I've seen it systems where the PCs are demigods right off the bat. Who cares if you can throw a mountain if the "wizard" can alter reality?

I agree. And the worldbuilding would be better for actually defining the limits/nature of spells as well. Even if it's tiered--

1. In a weak-spell world, there's magic (aka fantastic stuff not seen on earth), but spells are weak and mostly ritualistic.
2. In a balanced world, there's magic and spells are one of many ways of accessing it
3. In a spell-forward world, if you don't have spells you ain't nothing (cf Strixhaven).

Each with their own recommendations.

[Lemmy]

So it's basically 5e again???

*sigh* The whole "everything is a different flavor of 5e" situation is one of the reasons I've lost almost all my interest in this hobby

[Lord Raziere]

I've seen it systems where the PCs are demigods right off the bat. Who cares if you can throw a mountain if the "wizard" can alter reality?

This does not sound like the problem is with the people who can throw mountains. It sounds like problem is with the people whom no one is willing to limit or constrain meaningfully.

[Brookshw]

So it's basically 5e again???

*sigh* The whole "everything is a different flavor of 5e" situation is one of the reasons I've lost almost all my interest in this hobby

On that note, how has people's excitement for KP's system changed with the first playtest packet (and I guess the interview)? I went from maybe an 8 or 9 to maybe 3 or 4. Wondering how others are reacting.

[Lemmy]

On that note, how has people's excitement for KP's system changed with the first playtest packet (and I guess the interview)? I went from maybe an 8 or 9 to maybe 3 or 4. Wondering how others are reacting.
For me... It was more a cautiosly curious 4 that just became an apathetic 0.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This does not sound like the problem is with the people who can throw mountains. It sounds like problem is with the people whom no one is willing to limit or constrain meaningfully.

Right. No amount of buffing the constrained will help if there are a group of people who are not constrained. Unless you make everyone unconstrained...which makes them all very similar[1].

Solutions should be addressed where the root of the problem is. In this case, the spell-casting system and the expectations surrounding it (including but not limited to the idea that wizards are definitionally the best because they're smart). If spell-casting was only one, not-particularly-special way of accessing fantastic power beyond earth-mortals' ken, with its own hard thematic and mechanical limits, that'd be one thing. But even getting to that point involves firmly grasping the 3rd rail of D&D-likes (the "magic === spells === can do anything" mentality) and being willing to wield a heavy nerf-bat.

[1] asymptotically as power approaches infinity, all differences recede and you're left with just different color schemes.


On that note, how has people's excitement for KP's system changed with the first playtest packet (and I guess the interview)? I went from maybe an 8 or 9 to maybe 3 or 4. Wondering how others are reacting.

Since I'm actually quite fond of 5e and plan on continuing playing it (or something that looks like it from a sufficient distance), I'm still interested. But mainly in the "ooh, another place to steal ideas for for my franken-system" mode. Which was how I was overall.

[Lord Raziere]

Right. No amount of buffing the constrained will help if there are a group of people who are not constrained. Unless you make everyone unconstrained...which makes them all very similar[1].

Solutions should be addressed where the root of the problem is. In this case, the spell-casting system and the expectations surrounding it (including but not limited to the idea that wizards are definitionally the best because they're smart). If spell-casting was only one, not-particularly-special way of accessing fantastic power beyond earth-mortals' ken, with its own hard thematic and mechanical limits, that'd be one thing. But even getting to that point involves firmly grasping the 3rd rail of D&D-likes (the "magic === spells === can do anything" mentality) and being willing to wield a heavy nerf-bat.

[1] asymptotically as power approaches infinity, all differences recede and you're left with just different color schemes.


Yup, until people stop being in love with Infinite Utility Bookworm, thats not happening, unfortunately.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yup, until people stop being in love with Infinite Utility Bookworm, thats not happening, unfortunately.

D&D: Revenge of the nerds.

I jest, but I really think that's a large part of it. Wanting to show those meatheads that being smart is the ultimate power.

[False God]

This approach works for a little bit but eventually you hit another tension point where you can't add more "martial" stuff but magic continues to grow on every axis.

I've seen it systems where the PCs are demigods right off the bat. Who cares if you can throw a mountain if the "wizard" can alter reality?

Well, the options here are to make "martial abilities" scale with level.

IE: Cleave hits more targets as you level up (also negating the need for Greater and Whirlwind, or forcing them to do something special)
or Power Attack adds bonus damage dice as you level up, in a similar vein to sneak attack.

There are ways to scale up melee utility and offense by following spell design, without making them magical, or making martials magical.

I think Wish, Miracle, etc...should be removed wholesale. Casting spells is good and all, rewriting reality is, IMO, something that is great in literature but not so great at the table.

[Pauly]

Yup, until people stop being in love with Infinite Utility Bookworm, thats not happening, unfortunately.

It has a lot to with the way D&D has expanded over the years.

It’s much simpler to write a new spells and add them to a laundry list of other spells than it is to write a new way of hitting people that doesn’t break the game,

The side effect is that after a certain number of editions you end up with a sufficient number of spells to create the Infinite Utility Bookworm. Once the IUB had been created it cannot be un-created in future editions.

The way to get around it is a completely different magic system.
For example there are systems that once you master the a fire domain you can create fire spells and powerup the spell to increase range, increase damage, increase duration of effect, combine it with another type of damage etc. but each element you add increases the cost/slot level of the spell. With there being limits on the number of domains and number of powerups to spells you can know.
Another example are skill tree type magical progressions where you can be hyperspecialized and very good at one thing or a jack of all trades master of none or something in between the extremes.

[KorvinStarmast]

D&D: Revenge of the nerds.
I jest, but I really think that's a large part of it. Wanting to show those meatheads that being smart is the ultimate power. I work with a lot of smart people, some of whom are really dumb.

It’s much simpler to write a new spells and add them to a laundry list of other spells than it is to write a new way of hitting people that doesn’t break the game, Path of least resistance and least effort expended, perfect Slacker approach.

The way to get around it is a completely different magic system. s. That takes effort, which isn't a Slacker preference.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I work with a lot of smart people, some of whom are really dumb.

Not only have I worked around a lot of brilliant idiots, I've often been the brilliant[1] idiot.

[1] PhD in Computational Quantum Chemistry means I'm not stupid. No matter how I act sometimes.

[KorvinStarmast]

Not only have I worked around a lot of brilliant idiots, I've often been the brilliant[1] idiot.

[1] PhD in Computational Quantum Chemistry means I'm not stupid. No matter how I act sometimes.
Just gonna say that some of the idiots I work with ain't so brilliant, but a few of them are. :smalltongue:

[Sparky McDibben]

I'm still at a 7 or 8 for it, personally. We haven't seen enough to kill my enthusiasm, and the core value it adds for me is by being a better version of 5E that I can run. I want to see how they tackle the 5 minute adventuring day, the caster-vs-martial divide, and the classic 5E problem: "Why are these monsters armed with featherdusters?"

On a side note, I really don't understand the people who say, "Oh, it's just 5E with a twist? God, how depressing." Like, they literally said:


Regardless of what comes, Project Black Flag maintains core compatibility with the 5E products you already know and love, but with a Kobold spin.

Project Black Flag will embrace 5E and expand upon it.

Source: https://koboldpress.com/project-black-flag-no-white-flag/

This sounds like a problem with people not reading thoroughly, not a problem with the design team failing to uphold their goals.

[Pex]

Maybe but even with the buffs to the martial ones like HaM, the spell casting options are "cheaper" compared to delayed ASIs and are still stronger due to stacking impact.


In the linked interview, Conowitch mentioned that making martials more interesting and varied was a big design goal for her. So I think the jury's still out on this.

To be min/maxing about it, it helps that it's easier to get an 18 at first level, presuming +2/+1 is supposed to work with Point Buy/Standard Array also. With 18 in your prime at start it's easier to choose talents the first couple of ASIs. A 20 is still nice but not so must have at these levels. MAD classes want 18/18. Player choice to get the second 18 at 4th or 8th level and choose a talent the other time. This isn't a criticism/problem. It's only an issue for players who need those 18s. They're not wrong for wanting the 18s. They simply have a choice to make neither of which is the wrong one. If they're happy with 18/16 or even 16/16 from 1st to 8th level they can enjoy the talents too.

[Kane0]

Im sitting at about a 4, mild to moderate interest. I'm already fully capable of hacking 5e this way and that, so I'm not so much keen on what the end product will be in its entirety but rather what neat stuff I can pinch for my own ends.
I'm not super thrilled that they are increasing the average power of PCs as a design goal, but thats a personal taste.

[False God]

Because they only said that after WotC released the CC SRD. Before that the promised project couldn't have been been 5e redux.

When it was promised as a new RPG under the ORC license, that had to mean a new RPG.

They totally changed their tune, they raised the white flag of surrender in the very post you linked, and some of us missed that 180 degree turn.

Basically this. Yeah, I missed the article where they said "Well shoot, if we can take the easy way, we'll do that instead!"

Which is basically what lost my interest in this. A 5E-close solidifies 5E's position as the central RPG. That it is SO popular, all other games must revolve around it somehow. When WotC was ready to burn down the entire hobby to make an extra buck, it was good to see major players speak up against the idea of 5E being the central pillar of TTRPGing and game design. Now that it's free to use, in my view Kobold Press are now the ones earning my ire, as they appear to be the ones more interested in making a quick buck off WotC's back, rather than charting new waters away from the safe, money-making harbor of 5E.

I'll repeat it here because apparently it's needed. My ire for WotC has not cooled. Nothing they have done has washed the bad taste out of my mouth. ALL they have done is place some forgivness candies on the table and said a very BP "I'm sorry." Apparently some folks like Kobold Press have very quickly indulged in those candies.

That sort of quick indulgence means KP gets added to the list. It means it is a company I cannot trust whose priority is not the health of the hobby, but their own ease and ability to make a buck.

I don't begrudge a corporation for being a corporation, but don't get me wrong, the next time I hear KP talking about "doing something new" my response will be a very sarcastic eye-roll, and not actual interest.

[Pex]

Basically this. Yeah, I missed the article where they said "Well shoot, if we can take the easy way, we'll do that instead!"

Which is basically what lost my interest in this. A 5E-close solidifies 5E's position as the central RPG. That it is SO popular, all other games must revolve around it somehow. When WotC was ready to burn down the entire hobby to make an extra buck, it was good to see major players speak up against the idea of 5E being the central pillar of TTRPGing and game design. Now that it's free to use, in my view Kobold Press are now the ones earning my ire, as they appear to be the ones more interested in making a quick buck off WotC's back, rather than charting new waters away from the safe, money-making harbor of 5E.

I'll repeat it here because apparently it's needed. My ire for WotC has not cooled. Nothing they have done has washed the bad taste out of my mouth. ALL they have done is place some forgivness candies on the table and said a very BP "I'm sorry." Apparently some folks like Kobold Press have very quickly indulged in those candies.

That sort of quick indulgence means KP gets added to the list. It means it is a company I cannot trust whose priority is not the health of the hobby, but their own ease and ability to make a buck.

I don't begrudge a corporation for being a corporation, but don't get me wrong, the next time I hear KP talking about "doing something new" my response will be a very sarcastic eye-roll, and not actual interest.

You say that like 5E is a bad game. If you don't like it you don't like it, but even when everyone was yelling and condemning WOTC no one was yelling and condemning D&D. Everyone was boycotting WOTC, but they were not boycotting D&D. People did look into Pathfinder and other games. Good for them, but no one was advocating for people to stop playing their current D&D campaigns. With 5E in Commons now I expect more people to develop their own derivations. Hooray for them. If 5E is the epitome then let it be the epitome. The ire was only ever about business practice, never the game system itself in how it works. You don't have to like or play any 5E derivative, but it is uncalled for to condemn a company publishing such.

[Lord Raziere]

Basically this. Yeah, I missed the article where they said "Well shoot, if we can take the easy way, we'll do that instead!"

Which is basically what lost my interest in this. A 5E-close solidifies 5E's position as the central RPG. That it is SO popular, all other games must revolve around it somehow. When WotC was ready to burn down the entire hobby to make an extra buck, it was good to see major players speak up against the idea of 5E being the central pillar of TTRPGing and game design. Now that it's free to use, in my view Kobold Press are now the ones earning my ire, as they appear to be the ones more interested in making a quick buck off WotC's back, rather than charting new waters away from the safe, money-making harbor of 5E.

I'll repeat it here because apparently it's needed. My ire for WotC has not cooled. Nothing they have done has washed the bad taste out of my mouth. ALL they have done is place some forgivness candies on the table and said a very BP "I'm sorry." Apparently some folks like Kobold Press have very quickly indulged in those candies.

That sort of quick indulgence means KP gets added to the list. It means it is a company I cannot trust whose priority is not the health of the hobby, but their own ease and ability to make a buck.

I don't begrudge a corporation for being a corporation, but don't get me wrong, the next time I hear KP talking about "doing something new" my response will be a very sarcastic eye-roll, and not actual interest.

Yeah, basically this.

They took a hard stance of "we won't stand for this" then capitulated the moment it became easy to do so. it speaks not of principle but of opportunism and fair-weather course-charting.

as for whether 5e is good, that is a subjective opinion, which all do not agree with. But even if it is, I'd disagree with any rpg being a "central" one being a good thing out of principle. monodominance of any kind is not good, regardless of benevolence.

[stoutstien]

Not only have I worked around a lot of brilliant idiots, I've often been the brilliant[1] idiot.

[1] PhD in Computational Quantum Chemistry means I'm not stupid. No matter how I act sometimes.

I feel that. Just started a new job where I explain, what I consider basic biology, management, nomenclature, and cause/effect, to PhDs in genetics, bioengineering, and other stuff I have to Google to even figure out what they are.

Right now I'm trying to figure out how to politely word a response to someone who needs to redo a 2-3 project because they forgot genetic drift....

One of the big reasons I'm removing codified mental ability scores from my game is the weird space it takes up. Conviction or stubbornness seem more apt to the application of learning magic.

Magic ≠ math, logic, or science. It's magic. Once it's figured out it's just technology.

[False God]

You say that like 5E is a bad game. If you don't like it you don't like it, but even when everyone was yelling and condemning WOTC no one was yelling and condemning D&D. Everyone was boycotting WOTC, but they were not boycotting D&D. People did look into Pathfinder and other games. Good for them, but no one was advocating for people to stop playing their current D&D campaigns. With 5E in Commons now I expect more people to develop their own derivations. Hooray for them. If 5E is the epitome then let it be the epitome. The ire was only ever about business practice, never the game system itself in how it works. You don't have to like or play any 5E derivative, but it is uncalled for to condemn a company publishing such.

Uh yeah, actually a lot of people were advocating to stop playing D&D entirely, because a boycott of a company doesn't really work if you keep using its products.

[SpanielBear]

Uh yeah, actually a lot of people were advocating to stop playing D&D entirely, because a boycott of a company doesn't really work if you keep using its products.

A boycott only makes sense if it’s hitting the company, and that does tend to mean in the wallet.

Stop subscribing to dnd beyond, sure.

Stop buying books, makes sense

Start campaigns with new players in different systems, right, denies the company new customers

But stopping your home game that WoTC isn’t even aware of? That’s cutting your nose off to spite your face.

[Sparky McDibben]

A boycott only makes sense if it’s hitting the company, and that does tend to mean in the wallet.

Stop subscribing to dnd beyond, sure.

Stop buying books, makes sense

Start campaigns with new players in different systems, right, denies the company new customers

But stopping your home game that WoTC isn’t even aware of? That’s cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Well said, and thanks!

[Lemmy]

A boycott only makes sense if it’s hitting the company, and that does tend to mean in the wallet.

Stop subscribing to dnd beyond, sure.

Stop buying books, makes sense

Start campaigns with new players in different systems, right, denies the company new customers

But stopping your home game that WoTC isn’t even aware of? That’s cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Well... You're right. But the first 3 things you mention could very reasonably and accurately be described as "boycotting D&D".

And it'd be reasonable to understand "stop playing D&D" as "phase it out of your hobbies" (i.e.: finish whatever games you have ATM, then move on to a different game once they're done".

Both of which are reasonable course of actions, and things that I believe people should still do, IMHO.

WotC hasn't really done anything to deserve forgiveness for what they attempted. They showed their true colors (again), and those colors don't change so easily just because they threw a CC bone to the community they tried to screw.

[SpanielBear]

Well... You're right. But the first 3 things you mention could very reasonably and accurately be described as "boycotting D&D".

And it'd be reasonable to understand "stop playing D&D" as "phase it out of your hobbies" (i.e.: finish whatever games you have ATM, then move on to a different game once they're done".

Both of which are reasonable course of actions, and things that I believe people should still do, IMHO.

WotC hasn't really done anything to deserve forgiveness for what they attempted. They showed their true colors (again), and those colors don't change so easily just because they threw a CC bone to the community they tried to screw.

Absolutely the three examples I put forward are boycotting, and that was intentional- apologies if it looked like I was saying they weren’t. And I’m not taking a stance on whether boycotting WoTC is right or wrong, I totally agree the company tried to pull a fast one and everyone has the right to respond to that as they see fit. No argument there.

What I was trying to respond to were the comments that portrayed shutting down existing games as being a necessary part of denying WoTC support. And I just don’t think that’s the case. If you have a 5e game that’s been running years, where you bought all the books you need and nothing is on any subscription platform that funds the company- why lose a story and characters you’re invested in?

This whole debacle was about WoTC trying to claim ownership of anything 5e related they didn’t already possess. Isn’t giving up your home game… kind of conceding that point to them? My campaign is between me and my friends, not WoTC, and I’m not sacrificing it to their greed. It would only punish me and the players.

[KorvinStarmast]

A boycott only makes sense if it’s hitting the company, and that does tend to mean in the wallet.
{snip}
But stopping your home game that WoTC isn’t even aware of? That’s cutting your nose off to spite your face. Our Wednesday game? They/we just play, all of this other stuff going on is noise or not even something they care about.

[Pex]

Well... You're right. But the first 3 things you mention could very reasonably and accurately be described as "boycotting D&D".

And it'd be reasonable to understand "stop playing D&D" as "phase it out of your hobbies" (i.e.: finish whatever games you have ATM, then move on to a different game once they're done".

Both of which are reasonable course of actions, and things that I believe people should still do, IMHO.

WotC hasn't really done anything to deserve forgiveness for what they attempted. They showed their true colors (again), and those colors don't change so easily just because they threw a CC bone to the community they tried to screw.

Yes, WOTC burned their bridge. They got people to put their pitchforks and torches away, but that doesn't mean the tributes will return. The test comes in 2024 and what they do with D&Done. If they put it in OGL with bold and capitalized word IRREVOCABLE that's a good sign. They could put it in Commons. They can sign on to ORC bringing D&Done with them. Maybe some people will never forgive, but WOTC can at least try. It will be a great risk if they go with D&Done alone, to be restrictive with just that product. 5E is in Commons, so unless D&Done is so phenomenal it will fail on restrictiveness by the bad publicity alone.

The alternative is Hasbro/WOTC sell D&D. Hasbro sticks with toys. WOTC sticks with Magic The Gathering. Pass the baton for someone else to run D&D. Kobold Press perhaps.


Absolutely the three examples I put forward are boycotting, and that was intentional- apologies if it looked like I was saying they weren’t. And I’m not taking a stance on whether boycotting WoTC is right or wrong, I totally agree the company tried to pull a fast one and everyone has the right to respond to that as they see fit. No argument there.

What I was trying to respond to were the comments that portrayed shutting down existing games as being a necessary part of denying WoTC support. And I just don’t think that’s the case. If you have a 5e game that’s been running years, where you bought all the books you need and nothing is on any subscription platform that funds the company- why lose a story and characters you’re invested in?

This whole debacle was about WoTC trying to claim ownership of anything 5e related they didn’t already possess. Isn’t giving up your home game… kind of conceding that point to them? My campaign is between me and my friends, not WoTC, and I’m not sacrificing it to their greed. It would only punish me and the players.

Yes. You already bought the books you need. Don't buy any new WOTC books, but that doesn't mean you have to stop playing D&D. You can even start new D&D campaigns.

[Atranen]

My interest has diminished, from maybe an 8 to something like a 4; although part of that is because WOTC successfully recovered with the CC move. I can't really fault KP; they're a small company in a tough industry and they have to keep the lights on and their people employed, so opting for the safe route of the kinds of products that have worked for them previously is a reasonable choice. That said, I was excited to have something more different to try. I think they'll succeed at making an interesting variant, but I feel like "it's like 5E but a little different" is a tougher sell to my groups than "it's a different system". I'll probably end up using it like others have said; hacking good mechanics from it, rather than sitting down and playing a "PBF" game.

But if WoTC missteps with OneD&D and PBF becomes a strictly better (and supported) version of the same game, I could change my tune. Really KP is in a tough spot because the degree of success of PBF largely depends on WoTC screwing up.

[jjordan]

I don't know why people ever expected PBF to produce anything other than a near 5e product. Those publishers have a boatload of 5e compatible IP they don't want to have to rewrite AND they want to remain compatible with D&D moving forward, it's still the biggest game in the US market by far.

[Easy e]

Yeah, staying 5E adjacent is a smart business move on Kobold's part. I mean, it isn't even breaking new ground, as this course of action and approach has all ready seen success with Paizo/Pathfinder.

I had no expectation that they would break hard from 5E. However, since I am not that into D&D mechanics of any type, seeing it is just a re-skin of 5E does not make me inclined to try it further.

[Lemmy]

Well, forgiving WotC this easy is pretty harmful to the industry and hobby as a whole, IMO... But I don't judge anyone who decides to try PBF or even stick with D&D, if they want... I don't think that makes anyone a bad person.

Life is short. Play the games you want to play. Watch the movies you want to watch.

Personally, however, I won't support WotC any time soon (because of what they did) and I won't support 5e-adjacent products, even if they are not from different companies, because I don't find those mechanics to be very fun or interesting.

Best of luck to KP, but I now have zero interest in their new product and will think twice before supporting them in the future.

[Sparky McDibben]

Again, it's because they could not make a near 5e product if they weren't able to / willing to use the OGL.

No OGL = No near-5e product.

Disagree. I think their play all along was to basically revise the 5E system (like they're doing now) to operate outside the OGL and then just continue on as 6E dropped. I suspect they're continuing with this play because none of the conditions have really changed except maybe they have more freedom with hacking base 5E. They obviously don't trust that 6E will play nice with 3PP, and they obviously want to insulate their business from future bad actors at WotC. Hence PBF.

[KorvinStarmast]

Life is short. Play the games you want to play. Watch the movies you want to watch. We do that. Our usual group plays D&D 5e because we enjoy it. I'll be seeing the D&D movie. Planned that long before this issue was raised. (I hope it's enjoyable, but then, I hoped that Rings of Power would be a good mini series and ... well...discussions elsewhere on that.

[Brookshw]

Disagree. I think their play all along was to basically revise the 5E system (like they're doing now) to operate outside the OGL and then just continue on as 6E dropped. I suspect they're continuing with this play because none of the conditions have really changed except maybe they have more freedom with hacking base 5E. They obviously don't trust that 6E will play nice with 3PP, and they obviously want to insulate their business from future bad actors at WotC. Hence PBF.

I'm with Tanarii, when they said they were making a new RPG, I understood that to mean "new". What we're seeing now is just more of their product line, if they had said "in response to WoTC's new OGL were going to release more of our standard content", I'd have had a very different reaction.

[Psyren]

Treantmonk looked through the playtest packet (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INs-eDFaysg) and my reaction pretty much echoes his. The document provided is 70% unnecessary regurgitation of the 5.1 SRD (I don't need a Kobold Press playtest explaining what dice are) and the stuff that's new is all over the place.

1) There are numerous basic typographical/proofreading errors throughout the packet (e.g. the roll for stats rules, the XP table, presumably the jump to 3rd-level spell that the Cloud Elf gets etc.)

2) Very sparse. 3 races, 2 subraces each, and then we're at 10 pages out of 12. As mentioned earlier, the bulk of the packet is padding due to SRD regurgitation.

3) Wonky race balance. Grove Elf's climb speed in no way compares to Cloud Elf's 3rd level spell. Fireforge Dwarf's mending cantrip doesn't come close to Stone Dwarf's free Medium armor.

4) Wonky background/talent balance. Combat Casting all but guarantees you'll never have to make a concentration save starting at level 1 - you'd need to take 34 damage in one hit to even need to roll, never mind failure even being likely, and it only gets worse from there. And I don't see why any caster would skip School Specialization, it's the worst kind of feat design (the no-brainer), and being repeatable is utterly bonkers even if (as I suspect) you would need to pick a new school each time. Keep in mind that in Black Flag, you would max out your key ability much faster since everyone can start with 18 now. And all the Technical Talents are garbage.

5) Just generally funny design/interactions. Whoever was in charge of making Hand To Hand apparently doesn't know that everyone is already proficient with unarmed strikes, so at best that part of the feat is redundant, and at worst they're planning to take that away and put it behind a feat tax. And this has the same problem that 1DnD is actually solving, whereby the most intuitive feats for a given archetype had no benefit for that archetype, (e.g. Monks would have no reason to take Hand to Hand). Mental Fortitude means you can use Misty Step to outright end a Forcecage; note I didn't say just escaping from it yourself, you can use that to end the effect completely.

On the positive side, they did do one thing I found interesting. "Heritage" functioning as a sort of portable subrace that can be combined with a different Lineage to represent upbringing (or maybe half-breeds?) is an interesting idea; so if your halfling was raised by Stone Dwarves for example, they'll start with the armor proficiency, smith tools etc that a Stone Dwarf would. It does however mean that being raised by humans is a huge downgrade for most races.

All in all, I don't think Crawford has much to worry about here.

[False God]

Start campaigns with new players in different systems, right, denies the company new customers

But stopping your home game that WoTC isn’t even aware of? That’s cutting your nose off to spite your face.

These two lines contradict each other.

My home game promotes WotC's products. My players buy their books, their minis, their accessories and I encourage them to do so. In part because players with more personal ownership of materials IME means they take better care of them, reduces the burden on myself, and means they're more likely to DM in the future. These are all wins for me, and they are also wins for WotC.

My home game is fundamentally no different than a *new game* with *new people*. I encourage my players to participate in the larger hobby, to purchase products, to support FLGS as well as product producers, regardless of what system I'm playing. I buy more books and accessories for whatever game I'm running as well, sometimes out of necessity, sometimes because dangit, that sapphire dragon "mini" looks really cool!

If one of my players wants to run a 5E game and invites me to play, I'll certainly play, to support my friend/player/a new DM. I, however, do not.

There's no magical line between my PUG games at the store and my home games. They're all my games. Boycotts are hard if you really want to make them stick. It means more than just not buying a product, it means changing personal habits and sometimes in ways that really hit home. If you're not willing to make changes in your personal life to support your actions in your public life, why are you bothering?


I don't know why people ever expected PBF to produce anything other than a near 5e product. Those publishers have a boatload of 5e compatible IP they don't want to have to rewrite AND they want to remain compatible with D&D moving forward, it's still the biggest game in the US market by far.

Well, and this may surprise some folks, because ya know, KP said that's what they would do.

So I guess what you're really saying is "I don't know why anyone is surprised another corporation demonstrated they're more interested in money than a healthy hobby space." Yeah okay that's fair.


Yeah, staying 5E adjacent is a smart business move on Kobold's part. I mean, it isn't even breaking new ground, as this course of action and approach has all ready seen success with Paizo/Pathfinder.

But it's important to note Pathfinder stuck to D&D, when WotC didn't stick to D&D(or at least not traditional D&D, I still like 4E dangit!).

There are similarities, but there are important differences. Pathfinder gained monumental success by giving players what they wanted when WotC stuck to their guns about not giving players what they wanted.

5E already gives players what they want and D&DOne is already 5E-adjacent. It continues to give 5E players what they want.

So a 5E "compatible product" will always remain second fiddle to WotC, and will in fact support WotC in remaining the big dog. And that's all "black flag" will ever be, a "5E compatible product." People probably won't even know what it's actually called. It'll just be regarded as some 3rd-party splat for 5E.

Pathfinder, on the other hand, has very clearly distinguished itself as NOT a "3.5 compatible product". And few people would argue (IMO) that even though it is largely compatible, it is also a clearly distinct product.

[Sparky McDibben]

Pathfinder, on the other hand, has very clearly distinguished itself as NOT a "3.5 compatible product". And few people would argue (IMO) that even though it is largely compatible, it is also a clearly distinct product.

Hoss, you are spending a LOT of time and energy opining on something you have no interest in. If that's the case...why are you still here?

[False God]

Hoss, you are spending a LOT of time and energy opining on something you have no interest in. If that's the case...why are you still here?

To encourage other people not to support it.

[SpanielBear]

To encourage other people not to support it.

WoTC didn’t write my game. I did.

They didn’t write the setting, the items, the game hooks. They didn’t do the art. They didn’t have any hand in the homebrew rules I bolted on.

They didn’t create my players characters, didn’t get them excited in their stories.

The books we use, we bought ages ago.

Why the hell is it necessary, to punish *WoTC* for their actions, for us to lose all that? Because, again, even if we did, *WoTC won’t care*!!

(Also, my players are capable of critical thinking and making their own decisions about what they buy, so I find the suggestion that a home game is going to lead them into WoTC corruption, almost Satanic-Panic style, frankly a tad insulting to their intelligence.)

[Brookshw]

Treantmonk looked through the playtest packet (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INs-eDFaysg) and my reaction pretty much echoes his. The document provided is 70% unnecessary regurgitation of the 5.1 SRD (I don't need a Kobold Press playtest explaining what dice are) and the stuff that's new is all over the place. All fair points.


Combat Casting all but guarantees you'll never have to make a concentration save starting at level 1 - you'd need to take 34 damage in one hit to even need to roll, never mind failure even being likely, and it only gets worse from there. And I don't see why any caster would skip School Specialization, it's the worst kind of feat design (the no-brainer), and being repeatable is utterly bonkers even if (as I suspect) you would need to pick a new school each time. It was odd to me they simultaneously were developing the Theurge, a class that gets to double concentrate at the risk of easier to fail concentration rolls (so some kinda balance), while also making it easier to bypass that risk. I'm a bit hesitant that we'll be seeing a lot of power creep right out the gate.


All in all, I don't think Crawford has much to worry about here. It's early still, but, yeah.

[False God]

WoTC didn’t write my game. I did.

They didn’t write the setting, the items, the game hooks. They didn’t do the art. They didn’t have any hand in the homebrew rules I bolted on.

They didn’t create my players characters, didn’t get them excited in their stories.

Then why do you need WotC products to play your game?

I'm not cancelling my games. I'm just moving to a different system. My higher-level game, Pathfinder. My lower-level game, Co/NWoD.


The books we use, we bought ages ago.

Why the hell is it necessary, to punish *WoTC* for their actions, for us to lose all that? Because, again, even if we did, *WoTC won’t care*!!

(Also, my players are capable of critical thinking and making their own decisions about what they buy, so I find the suggestion that a home game is going to lead them into WoTC corruption, almost Satanic-Panic style, frankly a tad insulting to their intelligence.)

Because actions have consequences, and we are already trampled too often by corporations who want nothing more than money.

[SpanielBear]

Then why do you need WotC products to play your game?

I'm not cancelling my games. I'm just moving to a different system. My higher-level game, Pathfinder. My lower-level game, Co/NWoD.



Because actions have consequences, and we are already trampled too often by corporations who want nothing more than money.

Because I _have_ the products. They’re mine. They’re not rented online, it’s a couple of physical books.

I’m confused why, if WoTC is the one who has behaved atrociously, I’m somehow obliged to buy new things to punish them, and anyway how does it punish them exactly? How is that consequences for WoTC?

I’m not buying anything new from them, I’m not subscribing to anything. Since I bought the phb however many years ago I don’t appear on their radar. Whether I stop my game or not *doesn’t make a difference to them.*

[False God]

Because I _have_ the products. They’re mine. They’re not rented online, it’s a couple of physical books.

I’m confused why, if WoTC is the one who has behaved atrociously, I’m somehow obliged to buy new things to punish them, and anyway how does it punish them exactly? How is that consequences for WoTC?

I’m not buying anything new from them, I’m not subscribing to anything. Since I bought the phb however many years ago I don’t appear on their radar. Whether I stop my game or not *doesn’t make a difference to them.*

I explained that previously. Playing their game supports their standing and encourages others to purchase their products and discourages people from trying new systems, playing other games, or increasing the market presence of other systems.

I told you what actions I'm taking and explained why I'm taking them. Your actions are yours, my actions are mine. Yes I'm encouraging people to take the same or similar actions, I'd certainly like if more people took action, but you're hardly obligated to do anything.

And if you aren't buying anything, aren't on their radar and aren't looking for new systems, I might ask you the question Sparky McDibben asked of me: Why are you here?

[SpanielBear]

I explained that previously. Playing their game supports their standing and encourages others to purchase their products and discourages people from trying new systems, playing other games, or increasing the market presence of other systems.

I told you what actions I'm taking and explained why I'm taking them. Your actions are yours, my actions are mine. Yes I'm encouraging people to take the same or similar actions, I'd certainly like if more people took action, but you're hardly obligated to do anything.

And if you aren't buying anything, aren't on their radar and aren't looking for new systems, I might ask you the question Sparky McDibben asked of me: Why are you here?

But if that’s your logic, why is Kobold Press being based on 5e a problem? Because if we’re buying from Kobold press and not WoTC, boycott accomplished, right?

Leaving aside the fact that roleplaying isn’t a zero-sum game, and that I’ve been introduced to many different systems since playing 5e that I play as well- 5e is just a set of rules. What matters in this case is that WoTC not profit from them, correct? in which case, KP bringing out something equivalent is a straight win.

And I’m here because I’m always looking for ways to improve my game. Back to my point about game systems not being a zero sum thing, if there’s a good idea I can find from another source, I’ll cheerfully adopt it where possible.

Edit to add: I should say I’m not looking to convince you or anyone that you should play 5e. I’m just pushing back against what feels like quite a dogmatic stance against a game, that feels excessive if it’s being framed as a moral stance against the company. You don’t want WoTC to profit, but if there are ways to play the game (and legal ones furthermore) that don’t benefit the company, then how can that be objectionable?

[Sparky McDibben]

To encourage other people not to support it.

Awesome! Absolutely none of us are going to support it. Your mission is accomplished. Thank you so much and have a wonderful day!

[False God]

But if that’s your logic, why is Kobold Press being based on 5e a problem? Because if we’re buying from Kobold press and not WoTC, boycott accomplished, right?
No, and I explained why already, you may read a few posts back to see my argument. Supplementary posts can be found in the OGL thread.


Edit to add: I should say I’m not looking to convince you or anyone that you should play 5e. I’m just pushing back against what feels like quite a dogmatic stance against a game, that feels excessive if it’s being framed as a moral stance against the company. You don’t want WoTC to profit, but if there are ways to play the game (and legal ones furthermore) that don’t benefit the company, then how can that be objectionable?
I don't know why people keep construing my dislike of WotC as a dislike of 5E. 5E is an adequate product. I tend to find myself going beyond its bounds more often than not, I think the product has grown a little too wide splat-wise. I don't find it very creative or inventive, it takes the underlying math of 4E and combines it with powered-down elements of 3.5. Neither of these things are new or inventive. It's fine for what it is, I've bought plenty of 5E product and I like it well enough.

But I shouldn't have to defend the fact that I don't hate 5E when I support boycotting WotC. I'm also not playing 3.5. I'm also not playing 4E. I'm also not playing MTG, which I have played far longer and spent far far far more money on.

The point is to not give WotC room in the discussion. It doesn't get to sit at the table. It doesn't get to play with the toys. I gets to sit in a corner and wear a pointy hat and think about what it's done. It doesn't get to hear its name being talked about. It doesn't get to know we're all secretly enjoying its game behind it's back. It gets to know it's in trouble and it gets to know that we are in charge of when it gets out of trouble.

[Mastikator]

There was one thing in the playtest that I thought was really cool. Being able to combine any heritage with any lineage. That's a diamond in the rough.

Besides that I basically agree with what @Psyren said.

Honestly unless they really step up their game I mostly just hope WotC steals that idea from KP. I know, WotC stealing from other creators is taboo, but KP just released a worse 5.1 SRD as a playtest so I don't even feel bad about it. Whoever is making the best product is getting my money, and right now I'm a lot more impressed with 1D&D than I am with BF.

[Lemmy]

We do that. Our usual group plays D&D 5e because we enjoy it. I'll be seeing the D&D movie. Planned that long before this issue was raised. (I hope it's enjoyable, but then, I hoped that Rings of Power would be a good mini series and ... well...discussions elsewhere on that.
More power to you. While I will probably not buy any WotC product any time soon and hope more people choose to do the same... I sincerely hope everyone who decides to buy 5e material (and/or watch the D&D movie) enjoy the product they paid for.

If you ask me, I will tell you it'd be better if you didn't support WotC anymore, at least until there's significant change in how they do business. But if you choose to do so anyway... Well... Have fun! I won't join you, but I won't judge you based on that either.

[Brookshw]

Awesome! Absolutely none of us are going to support it. Your mission is accomplished. Thank you so much and have a wonderful day!

/Shrug. I'm concerned with the quality of the product, if they put something I liked out, I'd consider it. Trust and community don't matter, they sell goods, I evaluate goods, and purchase goods that match my desires. Any other consideration is just noise.

[Sparky McDibben]

/Shrug. I'm concerned with the quality of the product, if they put something I liked out, I'd consider it. Trust and community don't matter, they sell goods, I evaluate goods, and purchase goods that match my desires. Any other consideration is just noise.

I have no problem with "Wait and see." But I have a serious problem with bad faith persuasion to not like something that isn't even out yet. That was how those comments read to me, and why I responded the way I did.

[Brookshw]

I have no problem with "Wait and see." But I have a serious problem with bad faith persuasion to not like something that isn't even out yet. That was how those comments read to me, and why I responded the way I did.

I suspect between you and I that we're experiencing some good old fashioned internet communication accuracy here, though for clarity, my remarks are aimed at WoTC products (and KP, and anyone else for that matter), hence piggy backing on your "absolutely none of us" comment, I generally agree with your points otherwise.

Admittedly, I haven't been impressed with WoTC lately.

[Pex]

No, and I explained why already, you may read a few posts back to see my argument. Supplementary posts can be found in the OGL thread.


I don't know why people keep construing my dislike of WotC as a dislike of 5E. 5E is an adequate product. I tend to find myself going beyond its bounds more often than not, I think the product has grown a little too wide splat-wise. I don't find it very creative or inventive, it takes the underlying math of 4E and combines it with powered-down elements of 3.5. Neither of these things are new or inventive. It's fine for what it is, I've bought plenty of 5E product and I like it well enough.

But I shouldn't have to defend the fact that I don't hate 5E when I support boycotting WotC. I'm also not playing 3.5. I'm also not playing 4E. I'm also not playing MTG, which I have played far longer and spent far far far more money on.

The point is to not give WotC room in the discussion. It doesn't get to sit at the table. It doesn't get to play with the toys. I gets to sit in a corner and wear a pointy hat and think about what it's done. It doesn't get to hear its name being talked about. It doesn't get to know we're all secretly enjoying its game behind it's back. It gets to know it's in trouble and it gets to know that we are in charge of when it gets out of trouble.

Pathfinder became a success because WOTC misunderstood the love people had for the 3E system. Despite all the yelling and crying of the Tier System on this Forum, people loved the 3E system and were perfectly happy to continue playing it. Now people are loving the 5E system and want to continue playing it. They can be angry with WOTC and still want to play 5E. The idea is in the soon to come future those people still get to play the 5E system they love, but now all their money will go to Kobold Press instead of WOTC. Doesn't matter what WOTC does. Doesn't matter how similar D&Done is to what Kobold Press will do. WOTC will have their publicity out there however much you condemn their existence. The people who love the 5E system who like you will not forgive WOTC get to have their cake and eat it too. They get to play 5E and not give WOTC their money. They will buy Kobold Press products. It is not the responsibility of Kobold Press to metaphorically burn WOTC to ashes of complete destruction. You can resent WOTC remains in business all you want. Kobold Press does not deserve condemnation for giving people the 5E they want to play. 5E the game was never the issue.

[Psyren]

The point is to not give WotC room in the discussion. It doesn't get to sit at the table. It doesn't get to play with the toys. I gets to sit in a corner and wear a pointy hat and think about what it's done. It doesn't get to hear its name being talked about. It doesn't get to know we're all secretly enjoying its game behind it's back. It gets to know it's in trouble and it gets to know that we are in charge of when it gets out of trouble.

I can't wait for WotC to release the next 1D&D playtest packet :smalltongue::smalltongue:

You speak for yourself and no one else, save those who explicitly declare you speak for them too.


There was one thing in the playtest that I thought was really cool. Being able to combine any heritage with any lineage. That's a diamond in the rough.

Besides that I basically agree with what @Psyren said.

Just to note, Psyren stated the part you agree with too :smallbiggrin:


Honestly unless they really step up their game I mostly just hope WotC steals that idea from KP. I know, WotC stealing from other creators is taboo, but KP just released a worse 5.1 SRD as a playtest so I don't even feel bad about it. Whoever is making the best product is getting my money, and right now I'm a lot more impressed with 1D&D than I am with BF.

It's a nice idea but it needs a lot of work. It's the same problem that the half-breeds would have - anything you can mix-and-match like that needs to be balanced accordingly. And right now, the heritage balance is ridiculous. Compare Cloud Elf and Stone Dwarf to either human for example.

[Kane0]

Hrm, im thinking having heritage might squeeze out background, which may or may not be a good thing depending on how its handled. It could be fine if the benefits are just transferred elsewhere and the flavor becomes an extra side-box like trait/bond/flaw is.

[False God]

You speak for yourself and no one else, save those who explicitly declare you speak for them too.
Yes I believe I stated just that several times.

[stoutstien]

Hrm, im thinking having heritage might squeeze out background, which may or may not be a good thing depending on how its handled. It could be fine if the benefits are just transferred elsewhere and the flavor becomes an extra side-box like trait/bond/flaw is.

I don't mind having both structurally but they both need a lot of polish. Race (stuff that is always applied), heritage (stuff that is culturally constant like languages and major goals), and backgrounds being the fine tuning.

[Mastikator]

It's a nice idea but it needs a lot of work. It's the same problem that the half-breeds would have - anything you can mix-and-match like that needs to be balanced accordingly. And right now, the heritage balance is ridiculous. Compare Cloud Elf and Stone Dwarf to either human for example.

Making a TTRPG is a lot of work. I probably spent 500+ hours when I made mine and it's nowhere near as complicated as 5e. I think if Kobold Press believes they can piggyback ride the 5.1 SRD to make "their own" game they're in for a rude awakening. They should expect to put in at least ten thousand hours of combined work hours to make an adequate product IMO.

[Sparky McDibben]

I suspect between you and I that we're experiencing some good old fashioned internet communication accuracy here, though for clarity, my remarks are aimed at WoTC products (and KP, and anyone else for that matter), hence piggy backing on your "absolutely none of us" comment, I generally agree with your points otherwise.

Admittedly, I haven't been impressed with WoTC lately.

Oh, I'm sorry. Those remarks weren't because of you, but rather another forum member who seemed to be pushing an agenda instead of reviewing the material. Thanks for the gut check!

Edit: KP has released a statement by Celeste Conowitch going over why they're continuing work on Project Black Flag, here: https://koboldpress.com/project-black-flag-friday-design-diary-1/

If you prefer audio, here's Ted From Nerd Immersion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9_NRjCA8E0

Interesting stuff, and a good take from a pro.

Also, Mastikator's 10,000 hours comment got me curious. How long does it take to put that together?

Assumptions:
Standard US working week (40 hours per person).
Zero freelance work (conservative assumption).
10,000 hours is all-in (including writing, editing, layout, art direction, etc).

Conowitch stated on a recent stream (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1739183538?filter=archives&sort=time) that they have like 12 people at KP.
Let's assume, for a project of this magnitude, that they have the majority of those folks engaged with Black Flag - 8 heads working production and two managers (who we're not going to count toward production).

Let's further assume about 25% vacancy (the amount of time you spend every week not doing your main job - meetings, getting up to take a leak, watercooler gossip, etc), so that means 8 heads each working about 30 hours per week, or 240 production man-hours per week.

That means that to hit our 10,000 man-hours will take about 41 weeks, or just shy of 10 months.

Assuming playtest packets drop every two weeks for six months, that means about 12 packets, which seems light to me. Maybe 8 months? That's 16 packets, so that's about one per SRD class, plus one for races (as we saw), one for spells / spellcasting, and two more, probably for DM guidance or monster design.

That leaves about two months to synthesize feedback, assemble a completed project, and then run with that ball.

Tight, but do-able.

[KorvinStarmast]

I will tell you it'd be better if you didn't support WotC anymore, There are some books I have chosen not to buy, and some settings that I do not care for. I will be doing the 'play test' (UA Flail is what it appears to actually be) to get a good feel of the up coming version so that I can intelligently discuss with my two major groups that I DM for whether or not it's worth moving to the new edition.
I honestly don't think, at this point, that any of them will be hugely motivated to do that, but who knows?
I have a lot of content to run in 5e with them so it's not like I need anything more.

As for me as a player, whatever the DM has to play I'll play, or not. Have been talking with my first ever DM (as in, the guy who was DM in high school back in 1975) about the Star Trek RPG he got and had offered to run for us all a few years ago ... before Real Life threw him a couple of hard curve balls. He's still working full time, and sometimes overtime. We'll play that as soon as his life calms down, but the last three years have been rough on him and his wife.

Our every other week Blades in the Dark game is growing as we get used to that particular setting and system. As long as the RL scheduling monster doesn't hit us with a sneak attack, I can see that group sticking together for a couple more years.

You can resent WOTC remains in business all you want. Kobold Press does not deserve condemnation for giving people the 5E they want to play. 5E the game was never the issue. Plus eleventy-three for that whole post. Bravo.
And here's wishing Kobold Press nothing but good luck and good creative energy as they pursue their goal.

[Jervis]

Treantmonk looked through the playtest packet (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INs-eDFaysg) and my reaction pretty much echoes his. The document provided is 70% unnecessary regurgitation of the 5.1 SRD (I don't need a Kobold Press playtest explaining what dice are) and the stuff that's new is all over the place.

1) There are numerous basic typographical/proofreading errors throughout the packet (e.g. the roll for stats rules, the XP table, presumably the jump to 3rd-level spell that the Cloud Elf gets etc.)

2) Very sparse. 3 races, 2 subraces each, and then we're at 10 pages out of 12. As mentioned earlier, the bulk of the packet is padding due to SRD regurgitation.

3) Wonky race balance. Grove Elf's climb speed in no way compares to Cloud Elf's 3rd level spell. Fireforge Dwarf's mending cantrip doesn't come close to Stone Dwarf's free Medium armor.

4) Wonky background/talent balance. Combat Casting all but guarantees you'll never have to make a concentration save starting at level 1 - you'd need to take 34 damage in one hit to even need to roll, never mind failure even being likely, and it only gets worse from there. And I don't see why any caster would skip School Specialization, it's the worst kind of feat design (the no-brainer), and being repeatable is utterly bonkers even if (as I suspect) you would need to pick a new school each time. Keep in mind that in Black Flag, you would max out your key ability much faster since everyone can start with 18 now. And all the Technical Talents are garbage.

5) Just generally funny design/interactions. Whoever was in charge of making Hand To Hand apparently doesn't know that everyone is already proficient with unarmed strikes, so at best that part of the feat is redundant, and at worst they're planning to take that away and put it behind a feat tax. And this has the same problem that 1DnD is actually solving, whereby the most intuitive feats for a given archetype had no benefit for that archetype, (e.g. Monks would have no reason to take Hand to Hand). Mental Fortitude means you can use Misty Step to outright end a Forcecage; note I didn't say just escaping from it yourself, you can use that to end the effect completely.

On the positive side, they did do one thing I found interesting. "Heritage" functioning as a sort of portable subrace that can be combined with a different Lineage to represent upbringing (or maybe half-breeds?) is an interesting idea; so if your halfling was raised by Stone Dwarves for example, they'll start with the armor proficiency, smith tools etc that a Stone Dwarf would. It does however mean that being raised by humans is a huge downgrade for most races.

All in all, I don't think Crawford has much to worry about here.

Technically the stone heritage as written is suppose to be a generic mountainous upbringing. You don’t need to be raised by dwarfs, humans or elves can fill it as well. Remember the grouping is just for convenience to make tropey dwarfy mcdwarfson or leglace the elf elf.

I can forgive the proofreading errors, remember they probably rewrote what was done of the game once the Ogl crisis started and rewrote it again once WotC waved the white flag.

That said im definitely preferring this to the dndone race and background rules. WotC removed a lot of cultural features from race design and never really put them back in anywhere, as a result all elves have this weird meditation with the spirits of the ancients to get skill profs thing. I do hope we at least get a mention of hibrid rules since the heritage system doesn’t really work for it, even if it’s just the dndone stats of one race with a mixed appearance approach.

Given Crawford and the rest of the team’s previous showing as of late this could pretty easily blow dndone out of the water if the class design isn’t a copy paste.

[Psyren]

Making a TTRPG is a lot of work. I probably spent 500+ hours when I made mine and it's nowhere near as complicated as 5e. I think if Kobold Press believes they can piggyback ride the 5.1 SRD to make "their own" game they're in for a rude awakening. They should expect to put in at least ten thousand hours of combined work hours to make an adequate product IMO.

Which begs the question of whether 10,000 hours of work to make 5.0.1 is really the best use of their time. They could instead just be making more stuff for 5e itself, even if they want to write off 1DnD (a mistake in my opinion - they appear to be banking on a 3.5->4e style split like Paizo did.)



Edit: KP has released a statement by Celeste Conowitch going over why they're continuing work on Project Black Flag, here: https://koboldpress.com/project-black-flag-friday-design-diary-1/

Ooh, this should be good! Okay:

- "That’s why we are raising the flag to declare that we will be here to keep the candle burning, no matter what shareholders plan in some distant tower."

Overly-flowery poetry aside, fine sentiment.

- "Rather than wait for an uncertain future to unfold, why not make the upgrades we all want to see? Kobold Press doesn’t want to wait."

If this playtest is any indication of what they see as "upgrades" - like regressing back to slow dwarves, giving casters even better feats than 1D&D is, and no semblance of subrace heritage balance while making them portable, I think I'll pass.

- "Talents are divided into three categories: Martial, Magic, and Technical. Each class is tied to one of the three talent categories. Characters that gain a talent for their Improvement must choose it from the list that matches their class talent list."

Wait, so which category will Bards be in? Rangers? Whatever they get around to replacing Artificers with? What about hybrid subclasses like Arcane Trickster or Trickery Cleric?

- "The traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws tables have been removed from backgrounds. They have been replaced with a single Adventuring Motivation table that encourages players to look forward instead of backward when creating character narratives. Let’s reclaim all that page space eaten up by lackluster tables, shall we?"

No complaints with this.

- "BUT! We can give you a list of big-picture goals we are working towards to make this game even better:

● Make the rules easier to read and understand.
● Provide tools to reduce GM burden (encounter building tools, exploration encounter tools, social encounter tools, etc.).
● Rebalance a whole lotta existing junk (especially feats and classes).
● Provide opportunities for PCs to make meaningful choices at higher levels.
● Make spellcasting feel cooler."

So OneD&D then. Still, if they manage to make a decent subclass, I'll be happy to lift it.



Given Crawford and the rest of the team’s previous showing as of late this could pretty easily blow dndone out of the water if the class design isn’t a copy paste.

Sure thing. How about a little wager?

[Tanarii]

Edit: KP has released a statement by Celeste Conowitch going over why they're continuing work on Project Black Flag, here: https://koboldpress.com/project-black-flag-friday-design-diary-1/
I was going to leave good enough alone, but I can't let this contradiction pass.

They want to break the D&D monopoly ... by making a retro-clone of D&D? :smallconfused: Where is the logic in that?

Based on their next section, I feel like they're confusing the current situation for an opportunity to repeat what happened with WotC and Paizo previously. That's unlikely to happen, but more importantly that's not how you break the D&D monopoly. You do it by creating a new game. What they're doing is just going to reinforce the D&D monopoly.

As someone who has played every new full edition of D&D happily, I'm actually perfectly fine with them deciding to continue to reinforce it. It also makes business sense. I was just thrown off guard the apparent sudden left turn, and let down in my excitement as seeing what they could come up with as a new game. But I will say at this point I no longer trust their press releases.

[ahyangyi]

Paizo has the popular APs, which seems to be a rarer kind of ability than "I create a system". So the analogy between KP and Paizo perhaps don't not work.

By the way, Pathfinder 2e has the ancestry/heritage/lineage system. I can't say I played the whole system enough to like it or hate it, but I like that part of the system as well.

[Jervis]

Sure thing. How about a little wager?

To be clear i’m not speaking in terms of financial success, you need advertising for that and lets be honest in this crab bucket of a industry you can’t match Hasbro money. Dndone could be the worst edition in history and it would still do better financially because they can throw an advertising budget at it. The success of the Michael Bay transformer films should prove that quality doesn’t matter. I can see them becoming another Paizo at most realistically speaking and ending up as another reasonably sized game that makes WotC executives seethe eternally about not having all of the money.

In terms of actual quality though? Dndone has thus far been a minor improvement to 5e with some common homebrew fixes. Even only being able to look at the race selection of the two, black flag is doing it quite a bit better mechanically. And looking at official dnd outside of the playtest we have things like the utter disaster that was 5E Spelljammer and the strictly mid Dragonlance.

[Psyren]

To be clear i’m not speaking in terms of financial success,

Given that that's the only thing we can possibly measure, I don't really care about subjective opinions otherwise.


Paizo has the popular APs, which seems to be a rarer kind of ability than "I create a system". So the analogy between KP and Paizo perhaps don't not work.

By the way, Pathfinder 2e has the ancestry/heritage/lineage system. I can't say I played the whole system enough to like it or hate it, but I like that part of the system as well.

PF2 has this split, but not everyone wants their race to be represented by a dozen feats.

[Brookshw]

But I will say at this point I no longer trust their press releases.

In that interview I linked the other day, when they were talking about the Theurge as being some new, cool thing, without acknowledging the class/concept had existed in D&D for decades, I decided for future press releases to get out my bucket of salt. The big one.

[ahyangyi]

PF2 has this split, but not everyone wants their race to be represented by a dozen feats.

Indeed, I think I can get your point.

I love it that the offensive/utility options (weapon familiarity, innate magic, lore skills) are modular, since they often feel wasted on a character who don't use them, and there are too many of those to give all characters. But perhaps some of the defensive options should be baked into the ancestry.

[Snowbluff]

In that interview I linked the other day, when they were talking about the Theurge as being some new, cool thing, without acknowledging the class/concept had existed in D&D for decades, I decided for future press releases to get out my bucket of salt. The big one.

Oh, that's a familiar feeling. Feels like whenever I have to talk about a Paizo product. :smalltongue:

I don't want criticize KP too heavily, but this document seems really small. I don't feel like the whole "Black Flag" marketing really works when the product they're trying to be "yarr harr" about is freely available. Maybe there's something that may come from this in the future, but if people are just putting stuff out willy nilly, I've a buddy who's been making a list of homebrew suggestions and content that look better thought out than this release is.

[Brookshw]

Was in a Rokugan mood recently and picked up the 5e version, Adventures in Rokugan. Gotta hand it to them, they really did a great job on martials, different stances that affect combat while generating focus points to spend on techniques a'la a sorta spell point system. I think it would check a lot of boxes for some of the common design desires I see on this forum. I could see KP doing something like that, but simultaneously I don't think I'd want to see that unless it was broadly implemented across classes, which I doubt would be the case. Also, even with the change, no martial would be on par with some high level caster shenanigans a'la D&D.

[Kane0]

Also, even with the change, no martial would be on par with some high level caster shenanigans a'la D&D.

Buff Banner in one hand, Nerf Bat in the other.

[Mastikator]

Which begs the question of whether 10,000 hours of work to make 5.0.1 is really the best use of their time. They could instead just be making more stuff for 5e itself, even if they want to write off 1DnD (a mistake in my opinion - they appear to be banking on a 3.5->4e style split like Paizo did.)


Well if 1dnd takes the same path as 4e then most likely it will just fail, which may leave BF a window to take over like PF did. I wish I could say with confidence that WotC/Hasbro has learned the right lesson from their past failures but I'm 50/50 on that at the moment.

And if that's the case then BF is the real next iteration.

[Brookshw]

Buff Banner in one hand, Nerf Bat in the other.

If they were willing to, I'm not so sure they are, especially as it seems they want to make PBF compatible with their current stuff.

[Sparky McDibben]

Was in a Rokugan mood recently and picked up the 5e version, Adventures in Rokugan. Gotta hand it to them, they really did a great job on martials, different stances that affect combat while generating focus points to spend on techniques a'la a sorta spell point system. I think it would check a lot of boxes for some of the common design desires I see on this forum. I could see KP doing something like that, but simultaneously I don't think I'd want to see that unless it was broadly implemented across classes, which I doubt would be the case. Also, even with the change, no martial would be on par with some high level caster shenanigans a'la D&D.

That's interesting - I really didn't like that implementation. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25545632&postcount=24) Personally, I'm hoping for something more like the Book of Nine Swords. Why not make martial arts more magical?

[Psyren]

Well if 1dnd takes the same path as 4e then most likely it will just fail, which may leave BF a window to take over like PF did. I wish I could say with confidence that WotC/Hasbro has learned the right lesson from their past failures but I'm 50/50 on that at the moment.

And if that's the case then BF is the real next iteration.

Unless they take a sharp left from the current playtest and try to base 1DnD be about a new rules base entirely - then no, it's not taking the same path as 4e, not even close.


Was in a Rokugan mood recently and picked up the 5e version, Adventures in Rokugan. Gotta hand it to them, they really did a great job on martials, different stances that affect combat while generating focus points to spend on techniques a'la a sorta spell point system. I think it would check a lot of boxes for some of the common design desires I see on this forum. I could see KP doing something like that, but simultaneously I don't think I'd want to see that unless it was broadly implemented across classes, which I doubt would be the case. Also, even with the change, no martial would be on par with some high level caster shenanigans a'la D&D.

Hmm, link? I assume this is a DM's Guild thing, sounds interesting.

[Brookshw]

That's interesting - I really didn't like that implementation. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25545632&postcount=24) Personally, I'm hoping for something more like the Book of Nine Swords. Why not make martial arts more magical?

Eh, I wasn't a fan and can do without ToB, to each their own (mind you I have no problem with magical martial arts in other games). One thing I do like about AiR is that the classes clearly seem designed against each other. There's something about unified design theory I find appealing.



Hmm, link? I assume this is a DM's Guild thing, sounds interesting.

Rokugan/Legend of the 5 rings (https://edge-studio.net/games/rokugan/) has been its own thing and around for a while, but there was a 3e version. Fantasy Flight still owns the IP but licensed it to Edge Studio. Looks like you can get it off DriveThru (or Amazon, possibly your FLGS). Here's part 1 (https://philgamer.wordpress.com/2022/08/05/lets-study-adventures-in-rokugan-part-1-introduction-and-expectations/) of a multipart review.

[Pex]

Unless they take a sharp left from the current playtest and try to base 1DnD be about a new rules base entirely - then no, it's not taking the same path as 4e, not even close.



I don't think he meant by the rules of 4E but the business practice of 4E. WOTC made 4E exclusive to them. No one else could publish 4E rules game derivatives. Since 3E still existed in OGL everyone else published their own 3E rules derivatives making money with Paizo's Pathfinder the new king. D&Done isn't published yet and not subject to OGL or Commons until and unless WOTC say so. If WOTC repeats itself by keeping D&Done exclusive to them, then everyone else will continue to publish 5E derivatives with possibly Kobold Press becoming the new king. If WOTC puts D&Done into OGL then third party will publish D&Done derivatives but WOTC will remain king.

[Sparky McDibben]

Eh, I wasn't a fan and can do without ToB, to each their own (mind you I have no problem with magical martial arts in other games). One thing I do like about AiR is that the classes clearly seem designed against each other. There's something about unified design theory I find appealing.

That's fair, and that linked review looks like fun! Thanks!!

[Psyren]

D&Done isn't published yet and not subject to OGL or Commons until and unless WOTC say so.

They did say so, in the Ginny Di interview.



Rokugan/Legend of the 5 rings (https://edge-studio.net/games/rokugan/) has been its own thing and around for a while, but there was a 3e version. Fantasy Flight still owns the IP but licensed it to Edge Studio. Looks like you can get it off DriveThru (or Amazon, possibly your FLGS). Here's part 1 (https://philgamer.wordpress.com/2022/08/05/lets-study-adventures-in-rokugan-part-1-introduction-and-expectations/) of a multipart review.

I know what Rokugan is, but I was seeing if there was an official 5e-compatible version or not. (DriveThruRPG is the DM's Guild storefront btw.)

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't think he meant by the rules of 4E but the business practice of 4E. WOTC made 4E exclusive to them. No one else could publish 4E rules game derivatives. Since 3E still existed in OGL everyone else published their own 3E rules derivatives making money with Paizo's Pathfinder the new king. D&Done isn't published yet and not subject to OGL or Commons until and unless WOTC say so. If WOTC repeats itself by keeping D&Done exclusive to them, then everyone else will continue to publish 5E derivatives with possibly Kobold Press becoming the new king. If WOTC puts D&Done into OGL then third party will publish D&Done derivatives but WOTC will remain king. You said what I've been thinking. KP are rolling the bones.

[Sparky McDibben]

They did say so, in the Ginny Di interview.



I know what Rokugan is, but I was seeing if there was an official 5e-compatible version or not. (DriveThruRPG is the DM's Guild storefront btw.)

There is - it's called Adventures in Rokugan. I did a review of it on the forums (a search should pull it up, or I linked one of the posts upthread replying to Brookshw).

[catagent101]

This playtest makes me feel weird. Like by its own merits I don't think it's particularly good, but at the same time it feels eons better than the One D&D playtest because it is actually trying to be something.

[Brookshw]

That's fair, and that linked review looks like fun! Thanks!!

To your point re: magical martials and to append my earlier comment, I don't see any reason you could use a similar system with more magical techniques if that's your design/theme (sounds like KP wants to do that).



I know what Rokugan is, but I was seeing if there was an official 5e-compatible version or not. (DriveThruRPG is the DM's Guild storefront btw.)

/Thumbs up/. Definitely compatible, but they have a lot of their own sub-systems, some which are just add-ons (e.g., additional conditions and weapon properties), others, like their casters and dueling, are distinct. You could toss it into any 5e campaign without a ton of work, but the DM will need to make calls how a few pieces fit together.

[Mastikator]

They did say so, in the Ginny Di interview.

Saw the interview too. And I hope he's telling the truth because I like most of the stuff in the 1dnd playtest (a lot more than I like the one good thing about the BF playtest), and given the disparity of quality between the two, I'd like 1dnd to be the next king.

But if he say one thing and then does another thing, well, then BF might be the next king. Between PF2 and BF I'd rather BF, but honestly I'd rather just play something entirely else if 1dnd does not follow the tried and true business model. Heard good things about Lancer. Or maybe go back to scifi

[Tanarii]

This playtest makes me feel weird. Like by its own merits I don't think it's particularly good, but at the same time it feels eons better than the One D&D playtest because it is actually trying to be something.D&Done is actually trying to be something too. It's just something many 5e grognards wont like, especially likely if they're also Classic D&D or AD&D grognards.

D&Done is pretty clearly influenced to be more like 4e or PF2, or even 3.e/.5/PF, harder/stricter & more locked in rules so it can be more computerized, either by VTT or CRPG or MMO. Basically, tossing out as much of "rulings before rules" as they can while still keeping the core mechanics.

KP's BF is pretty clearly influenced to be 5e redux, cleaning up a few things but still maintaining the need for heavy DM input. Basically tossing out all of the WOTC owned IP, while keeping "rulings before rules" (in theory).

And not everyone loves the heavily OSR influenced concept of "rulings before rules". Unfortunately for WotC, that's the primary innovation that made 5e what it is. Everything stemmed from that.

Basically, WotC would be better to sell D&Done as 6e, not 5e. Because they're abandoning a core principle.

[animorte]

This playtest makes me feel weird. Like by its own merits I don't think it's particularly good, but at the same time it feels eons better than the One D&D playtest because it is actually trying to be something.
:smallconfused: Trying to be more of the same thing from what I can tell. OneD&D seems to be changing more things. And on that note...

Saw the interview too. And I hope he's telling the truth because I like most of the stuff in the 1dnd playtest (a lot more than I like the one good thing about the BF playtest), and given the disparity of quality between the two, I'd like 1dnd to be the next king.
I support this.

[Rynjin]

And that's exactly why trying something new was the best bet here. Gambling that the new D&D edition would suck as hard as 4e was a bold and ill-advised move.

[Psyren]

:smallconfused: Trying to be more of the same thing from what I can tell. OneD&D seems to be changing more things. And on that note...

I support this.

Thirded.


Basically, tossing out as much of "rulings before rules" as they can while still keeping the core mechanics.
...
Basically, WotC would be better to sell D&Done as 6e, not 5e. Because they're abandoning a core principle.

Can you elaborate on this, because I'm still seeing plenty of "rulings not rules" in the current playtest. For example, even with the new action types like the Study action and Search action, there's still a giant heaping pile of "it's up to you what they get, DM" baked in.

[Kane0]

Im keen to see their reimplementation of Fortitude/Reflex/Will, always like that save system.

[Mastikator]

Which begs the question of whether 10,000 hours of work to make 5.0.1 is really the best use of their time. They could instead just be making more stuff for 5e itself, even if they want to write off 1DnD (a mistake in my opinion - they appear to be banking on a 3.5->4e style split like Paizo did.)

What they could do, that would be really cool, is make a optional rules supplement like Xanathar's or Tasha's for the 5e SRD that is creative commons. A "Kobold Press Magazine of Everything" if you will. There they could have added/alternative feats, added/alternative heritage/lineage rules, etc. If good, I'd probably buy it.

[Just to Browse]

They've already made supplements akin to that, like Tome of Heroes. Lots of subclasses, feats, spells, equipment, species & subspecies. But the contents are generally Kobold Press quality, so your personal standards for "good" play a large role in determining whether the content is worth getting.

[Psyren]

They've already made supplements akin to that, like Tome of Heroes. Lots of subclasses, feats, spells, equipment, species & subspecies. But the contents are generally Kobold Press quality, so your personal standards for "good" play a large role in determining whether the content is worth getting.

Is this (https://www.5esrd.com/srd-content-source/tome-of-heroes/) the wiki/SRD for it?

[Brookshw]

Is this (https://www.5esrd.com/srd-content-source/tome-of-heroes/) the wiki/SRD for it?

Huh, thanks for linking. I have that on back order at the FLGS, but at a glance, a lot of those seem kinda lackluster (based on maybe 7 items, which isn't a fair reading).

[KorvinStarmast]

And not everyone loves the heavily OSR influenced concept of "rulings before rules". Unfortunately for WotC, that's the primary innovation that made 5e what it is. Everything stemmed from that.

Basically, WotC would be better to sell D&Done as 6e, not 5e. Because they're abandoning a core principle. If you look at how many video game folks they seem to be dragging in, why would anyone be surprised by this change in emphasis?

[SpanielBear]

Huh, thanks for linking. I have that on back order at the FLGS, but at a glance, a lot of those seem kinda lackluster (based on maybe 7 items, which isn't a fair reading).

I picked it up recently. Subclasses and spells seem a little underpowered on average but thematic, but there’s some really strong stuff for expanding weapons, fighter abilities, downtime activities and crafting. I’m happy with it as a purchase.

[Brookshw]

I picked it up recently. Subclasses and spells seem a little underpowered on average but thematic, but there’s some really strong stuff for expanding weapons, fighter abilities, downtime activities and crafting. I’m happy with it as a purchase.

Glad to hear, thanks!

[Psyren]

If you look at how many video game folks they seem to be dragging in, why would anyone be surprised by this change in emphasis?

Maybe because it's incorrect? Or at the very least, overblown?


I picked it up recently. Subclasses and spells seem a little underpowered on average but thematic, but there’s some really strong stuff for expanding weapons, fighter abilities, downtime activities and crafting. I’m happy with it as a purchase.

The balance seems all over the place. 2 levels of Ash Druid is strictly better than the Darkness/Devil's Sight combo for instance, and Bee Druid is very underwhelming by comparison. Some interesting ideas though.

[SpanielBear]

Maybe because it's incorrect? Or at the very least, overblown?



The balance seems all over the place. 2 levels of Ash Druid is strictly better than the Darkness/Devil's Sight combo for instance, and Bee Druid is very underwhelming by comparison. Some interesting ideas though.

Yeah, it’s like someone was saying in the chatgpt thread, its nice to have a thing get cogs turning that you might not have considered otherwise, even if you don’t take the ideas up verbatim.

And I like that 5e is a bit like the English language, in that it’s super easy to just tack new things onto it when you find them from another source. So even if I only end up using some of KP’s new ideas rather than all of them, I don’t feel as though I’ll have trouble porting them into the games I want to play if they’re on the same wavelength

[Psyren]

Yeah, it’s like someone was saying in the chatgpt thread, its nice to have a thing get cogs turning that you might not have considered otherwise, even if you don’t take the ideas up verbatim.

And I like that 5e is a bit like the English language, in that it’s super easy to just tack new things onto it when you find them from another source. So even if I only end up using some of KP’s new ideas rather than all of them, I don’t feel as though I’ll have trouble porting them into the games I want to play if they’re on the same wavelength

And it'll all be free, whether its published via 1.0a or CC.

If they want to charge me for their design though it's going to need a biiiit more work.

[KorvinStarmast]

Maybe because it's incorrect? Or at the very least, overblown?
The Defender of the Coast emerges from Lurk mode. No, not overblown.

[Brookshw]

The Defender of the Coast emerges from Lurk mode. No, not overblown.

I'm not sure I'm seeing a movie away from "rulings not rules" either, at least, not in the current playtest material. Are there examples you're thinking of?

[Psyren]

The Defender of the Coast emerges from Lurk mode. No, not overblown.

Is that title meant for me? I haven't been "lurking" anywhere, as even a cursory glance at my posting history will tell you.

Yes overblown.


I'm not sure I'm seeing a movie away from "rulings not rules" either, at least, not in the current playtest material. Are there examples you're thinking of?

I asked for that too and got crickets from both of them.

[animorte]

Is that title meant for me? I haven't been "lurking" anywhere, as even a cursory glance at my posting history will tell you.
If anything, I'm the lurker, as I concur with most of what you've had to say. You lurk none whatsoever from the clear forum presence. I lurk because you are clearly more well-spoken than I (and time availability).

Either way, I prefer to think of it much less "Defender" and more like, "wait and see, don't judge the entire edition based on 15% of the information."

[Sparky McDibben]

I asked for that too and got crickets from both of them.

I'm too tired to deal with this bad-faith crap. You ask for a fish, you get a fishing rod:

https://friendorfoe.com/d/Old%20School%20Primer.pdf

Read this. Then, go through the OneD&D playtest packet of your choice, find something that used to be a DM ruling, and now is a rule.

That's it. That's the whole shebang.

[Psyren]

I'm too tired to deal with this bad-faith crap. You ask for a fish, you get a fishing rod:

https://friendorfoe.com/d/Old%20School%20Primer.pdf

Read this. Then, go through the OneD&D playtest packet of your choice, find something that used to be a DM ruling, and now is a rule.

That's it. That's the whole shebang.

There's nothing "bad faith" about it; I didn't just say "u wrong" and run off into the sunset, I gave specific examples (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654138-Project-Black-Flag-playtest-has-begun!&p=25712452&viewfull=1#post25712452) of how OneD&D is keeping the same "rulings not rules" mindset that 5e has. None of which have been rebutted, including by you. The responsibility for supporting a claim lies with the person making it.

[Sparky McDibben]

The responsibility for supporting a claim lies with the person making it.

See, you're making that claim, but I don't see any proof.

[Psyren]

See, you're making that claim, but I don't see any proof.

I made the claim that OneD&D is abandoning rulings not rules?

[Razade]

I made the claim that OneD&D is abandoning rulings not rules?

They're teasing you because you're claiming the person making the claim needs to provide evidence and you didn't provide evidence to support that claim.

[Mastikator]

Here's an example of rules not rulings in 1dnd: influence.

The rulings approach is to talk to the NPC, or tell your DM how your character talks to the NPC.

The rules approach is to tell the DM you wish to influence the NPC to like you more.

I don't like 1dnds approach to NPC interaction.

Edit- What's lost here is the whole roleplaying pillar. IMO rolling to influence an NPC is abstract to the point of not being a roleplaying game. In both scenarios a charisma check is made but in the first scenario the player express their character and in the second they do not. PF2 has this problem a whole lot more IMO (which is why I don't like it). There's nothing wrong with having character buttons to push, but they shouldn't constrain what you can try to do.
5e has problems like these too. For example the assassin's ability to create a persona and disguise themselves as that, that's just something everyone should be able to do with an appropriate check. What the assassin could do is just not make a check, or once per day auto roll 20 (or always roll equal or higher than cha/int score). It's a button to push that allows room for roleplay.

Edit 2- BF seems to have this problem too IMO. Take the Trade Skills as an example. With it you can generate 2gp per day using your skill provided you have customers and the necessary equipment. Does that imply that anyone who doesn't have this talent can't hold a job?
How do you fix it? Instead say, "when you use your skill to earn a living using your skill or tool you earn twice as much.", this implies that anyone can perform labor, but with the Trade Skills talent you're better at it.

I do agree with the overall argument that TTRPGs are moving to rules over rulings, and that this is a bad move, but I do not agree that BF is not also moving in this direction.

Edit 3-
A rule of thumb should be: if an action is something only a select few can do, either because of their class, race, talents or proficiency, then the wording "in circumstance X you can do Y" is appropriate. It makes it clear that not everyone can do X, but you can.
If it's something anyone can do, but you can do better, use the wording "in circumstance X, when you do Y you have Z advantage". It makes it clear that anyone can try to do X, but you're better.

[stoutstien]

I'm torn. The quality of content and over all proofreading is fairly 'meh' but the layout and phrasing flows and feels like it could lead in some interesting directions.

Sure there are a ton of mistakes but they are obviously just that and aren't from double meanings contextual rules or from overly specific rules for a vague mechanic.

It's interesting enough for me to continue to follow the playtest and provide feedback but not enough to do a backing of anything unless it begins to show more promise.

[Brookshw]

Here's an example of rules not rulings in 1dnd: influence.

The rulings approach is to talk to the NPC, or tell your DM how your character talks to the NPC.

The rules approach is to tell the DM you wish to influence the NPC to like you more.

I don't like 1dnds approach to NPC interaction.

Edit- What's lost here is the whole roleplaying pillar. IMO rolling to influence an NPC is abstract to the point of not being a roleplaying game. In both scenarios a charisma check is made but in the first scenario the player express their character and in the second they do not.
[...]


Thanks for the example. I get where you're coming from, and sounds like the point of contention flows, at least in part, from the rules for rolling interpretation, and when the DM decides a roll to be warranted, i.e., do they set the DC then decide if warranted (moot at that point), or do they decide if warranted (possibly based on what the PCs actually do) and then set a DC. Think I'll need to take a "wait and see" what the skills rules in full look like when they release that playtest materials, my recollection is that there was a good amount of debate on this when when that playtest packet was released.

Back to KP, I liked something they did in the beginning of Scarlet Citadel where they recommend (but not require) DMs to have players explain what and how they're investigating, e.g., investigating the book shelf by running fingers over the wood to see if there's any secret button, push on or look for cracks on walls, etc., while adding tons of in game time (and some RW time) to fully search everything. I'd like to see them adopt that kind of mentality in developing their skills section, i.e., make the players think about what they're doing rather than just say "I roll X".

I suspect that both WoTC and KP will provide at least some optional guidance for both styles, regardless of which is the 'default'.

[Tanarii]

If you look at how many video game folks they seem to be dragging in, why would anyone be surprised by this change in emphasis?If they truly are wanting a VTT focus, it's an important pivot. 3e was nicely rules heavy and IMO it paid off with NWN. But who knows if that was intentional? With 4e it absolutely was intentional and explicit.

They've made it explicit now that VTTs are going to be a focus, so their pivot to focus on rules instead of rulings is reasonable decision based on that.


Im keen to see their reimplementation of Fortitude/Reflex/Will, always like that save system.Yes, it may help fix the issues with 'weak' saves. Otoh both 3e and 4e had just three saves, and they both suffered from "weak saves get worse as you level", both on the PC and monsters side.


Trying to be more of the same thing from what I can tell. OneD&D seems to be changing more things.KP is trying to fork 5e. They want to change only stuff that they're required to because it's not in the SRD.

WotC is trying to justify 3 new core books and focus on VTT (and probably outright CRPGs). They want to change as much as they can without iqt being called a new edition by the community, and streamline as much as possible for (at least) VTTs.

Different corporate goals will result in different products.

[Psyren]

They're teasing you because you're claiming the person making the claim needs to provide evidence and you didn't provide evidence to support that claim.

Ah! Well in that case, there they go: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof


Here's an example of rules not rulings in 1dnd: influence.

The rulings approach is to talk to the NPC, or tell your DM how your character talks to the NPC.

The rules approach is to tell the DM you wish to influence the NPC to like you more.

I don't like 1dnds approach to NPC interaction.

These two are identical; the DM is the one who chooses whether a roll is warranted in both cases, and if so, what the DC and effect will be. That's the "ruling" part. And while we don't yet know if Black Flag plans on changing that approach, I highly doubt they would.


I do agree with the overall argument that TTRPGs are moving to rules over rulings, and that this is a bad move, but I do not agree that BF is not also moving in this direction.

I still don't see why anyone thinks that to begin with. It just feels like one of those pervasive/undying TTRPG boogeymen like "everyone's a minmaxer!" and "nobody roleplays anymore!" where what the person is actually complaining about is a local failing of their playgroup not meeting their (often inadequately communicated) expectations. And no amount of Black Flags are going to fix that.


Edit 3-
A rule of thumb should be: if an action is something only a select few can do, either because of their class, race, talents or proficiency, then the wording "in circumstance X you can do Y" is appropriate. It makes it clear that not everyone can do X, but you can.
If it's something anyone can do, but you can do better, use the wording "in circumstance X, when you do Y you have Z advantage". It makes it clear that anyone can try to do X, but you're better.

Deciding whether a basic action or skill use or should be gated is best left up to the DM, regardless of edition. Again though, we don't have the info to know whether Black Flag plans on gating actions by proficiency (or anything else) in any case.

We do know that 1DnD plans to gate Help behind proficiency by default, unlike 5e. Personally I agree with that approach (so long as the DM is explicitly reminded they can override it) but whether they go through with that or not will likely depend on the survey.

[Mastikator]

These two are identical; the DM is the one who chooses whether a roll is warranted in both cases, and if so, what the DC and effect will be. That's the "ruling" part. And while we don't yet know if Black Flag plans on changing that approach, I highly doubt they would.
I mega disagree with the take that these are identical. They are identical in terms of whether a check is needed.
But where they differ is the roleplay aspect. As a DM I want my players to roleplay their characters, whether that means speaking in character with or without a funny voice, or just describing how they attempt to improve relations. It tells me something about their character, something they probably didn't write on their character sheet, something that previously existed only in their head. To me that is important information about their character, as important as their race/class/alignment/background combo. If they're just saying they want to use the influence action to increase NPC relation then something valuable (to me) is lost because it tells me almost nothing about their character.



I still don't see why anyone thinks that to begin with. It just feels like one of those pervasive/undying TTRPG boogeymen like "everyone's a minmaxer!" and "nobody roleplays anymore!" where what the person is actually complaining about is a local failing of their playgroup not meeting their (often inadequately communicated) expectations. And no amount of Black Flags are going to fix that.
Let me preface with where I'm coming from: I'm a mixmaxer. I think roleplay is important. To me these are not in opposition. I've seen players that are good at one but bad at the other. I've seen players that can do both well. I've seen players that barely do either.
My contention is not with "kids these days don't roleplay". It's with systems these days don't encourage roleplay. Roleplay isn't just speaking to NPCs, it's also interacting with the game world as if it's a real world. I want rules that encourage that, but I'm totally fine with no rules at all so that I can take over and encourage that. What I do not want is rules that take over that aspect and map them out in a video-game-esque way. That's how I view the Social Interaction rules from 1dnd playtest and the Trade Skill talent from BF. (and most of PF2 if I'm being perfectly frank)




Deciding whether a basic action or skill use or should be gated is best left up to the DM, regardless of edition. Again though, we don't have the info to know whether Black Flag plans on gating actions by proficiency (or anything else) in any case.

We do know that 1DnD plans to gate Help behind proficiency by default, unlike 5e. Personally I agree with that approach (so long as the DM is explicitly reminded they can override it) but whether they go through with that or not will likely depend on the survey.
The help action being by default gated behind proficiency I can live with.
Whether a DM can gate stuff isn't really what I'm talking about though. It's whether the next PHB gates basic actions behind class features, feats and species features. I used examples (the assassin) from the 5e PHB because I think it's not something 1dnd is starting, it's a tradition that 1dnd is likely to inherit. And BF playtest seems to have inherited.

[KorvinStarmast]

We do know that 1DnD plans to gate Help behind proficiency by default, unlike 5e. Which is (in my view) a jerk move by the devs, and a step backwards towards pointless restrictions in play, particularly out of combat play. I don't need to be proficient to try and fool someone, or sweet talk someone, but I'll do a poorer job most of the time due to having no bonus. But now and again, the blind squirrel does find that acorn, and that's a good experience for the whole table.

Anybody can try anything is a superior approach. As you pointed out a post or so back, not everyone min maxes.
Gating Help behind 'proficiencies' is a zero value approach to skill usage and that penalizes team play. But as 5e now reads, in some situations it's not practical to apply the help action and that needs to be left to the Situation and the Table to arrive at 'what makes sense and fun for them'
Hard coding that as a restriction is as bad as hard coding Jump as an action rather than movement.

I have a DM who used to gate skill / ability checks behind proficiencies that didn't even exist. (My brother). It took me to years to teach him how 5e is different from 3.x.

I have a current DM who tends to gate checks behind proficiency: I do not care for it...but it's not a deal breaker and we have a good group.

[Atranen]

These two are identical; the DM is the one who chooses whether a roll is warranted in both cases, and if so, what the DC and effect will be. That's the "ruling" part. And while we don't yet know if Black Flag plans on changing that approach, I highly doubt they would.

This reads like a rule 0 fallacy. Of course the DM always can decide to do whatever they want. But the more codified 'push button X, your character does Y' is, the more people will just say 'I push the button' rather than roleplaying.

I see this all the time with stealth and insight checks. "I try to stealth past the guard" and a roll without a description of how. Or "I roll insight to see if they are lying", without doing anything active to catch them in a lie. I expect OneD&D will have "I roll to influence" being more common than in 5e.

As an aside, I participated in a OneD&D playtest recently, and my interest in Black Flag is back up to like a 6 (from a 4 when the playtest dropped). If PBF does a decent job with the classes (I'm looking at you, Cleric), that would be enough for me to switch.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Which is (in my view) a jerk move by the devs, and a step backwards towards pointless restrictions in play, particularly out of combat play. I don't need to be proficient to try and fool someone, or sweet talk someone, but I'll do a poorer job most of the time due to having no bonus. But now and again, the blind squirrel does find that acorn, and that's a good experience for the whole table.

Anybody can try anything is a superior approach. As you pointed out a post or so back, not everyone min maxes.
Gating Help behind 'proficiencies' is a zero value approach to skill usage and that penalizes team play. But as 5e now reads, in some situations it's not practical to apply the help action and that needs to be left to the Situation and the Table to arrive at 'what makes sense and fun for them'
Hard coding that as a restriction is as bad as hard coding Jump as an action rather than movement.

I have a DM who used to gate skill / ability checks behind proficiencies that didn't even exist. (My brother). It took me to years to teach him how 5e is different from 3.x.

I have a current DM who tends to gate checks behind proficiency: I do not care for it...but it's not a deal breaker and we have a good group.

My preference is to use proficiency as an input when deciding if you automatically succeed. Because if you've said (and paid build resources to back it up) that your character has a focus in X, it's more likely (not guaranteed, but more likely) that this will be right up your alley and no need to roll. Even if the total bonus is the same.

Someone who is naturally nimble and someone who is less nimble but has specifically focused on doing magic tricks (sleight of hand) may have the same success rate on more difficult tricks. But someone who has specifically focused on it is more likely to have the lesser tricks as pure muscle memory and not really have a meaningful, in-fiction chance of failing.

I agree that gating checks behind proficiency should very much be the exception[1], not the rule.

[1] I'm fine with it for tools, whether crafting, thieves tools, weapons, armor, or musical instruments. Not so fine with it for general skill proficiencies.

[Psyren]

I mega disagree with the take that these are identical. They are identical in terms of whether a check is needed.
But where they differ is the roleplay aspect. As a DM I want my players to roleplay their characters, whether that means speaking in character with or without a funny voice, or just describing how they attempt to improve relations. It tells me something about their character, something they probably didn't write on their character sheet, something that previously existed only in their head. To me that is important information about their character, as important as their race/class/alignment/background combo. If they're just saying they want to use the influence action to increase NPC relation then something valuable (to me) is lost because it tells me almost nothing about their character.

And that's why you have the ability to deny their attempt unless they put a little more into it. Assigning it to a specific action doesnt mean you lose the ability to ask for more details; you're the one assuming it does.



Let me preface with where I'm coming from: I'm a mixmaxer. I think roleplay is important. To me these are not in opposition. I've seen players that are good at one but bad at the other. I've seen players that can do both well. I've seen players that barely do either.
My contention is not with "kids these days don't roleplay". It's with systems these days don't encourage roleplay. Roleplay isn't just speaking to NPCs, it's also interacting with the game world as if it's a real world. I want rules that encourage that, but I'm totally fine with no rules at all so that I can take over and encourage that. What I do not want is rules that take over that aspect and map them out in a video-game-esque way. That's how I view the Social Interaction rules from 1dnd playtest and the Trade Skill talent from BF. (and most of PF2 if I'm being perfectly frank)

Trade Skill is a horrible talent, no question. Either the amount is utterly trivial in which case you wasted a precious build resource, or you're in the kind of game where you can spam that for months and buy out the item shop. No player-facing rule should ever dictate the rewards you receive, rewards are the DM's purview.



The help action being by default gated behind proficiency I can live with.
Whether a DM can gate stuff isn't really what I'm talking about though. It's whether the next PHB gates basic actions behind class features, feats and species features. I used examples (the assassin) from the 5e PHB because I think it's not something 1dnd is starting, it's a tradition that 1dnd is likely to inherit. And BF playtest seems to have inherited.


Which is (in my view) a jerk move by the devs, and a step backwards towards pointless restrictions in play, particularly out of combat play. I don't need to be proficient to try and fool someone, or sweet talk someone, but I'll do a poorer job most of the time due to having no bonus. But now and again, the blind squirrel does find that acorn, and that's a good experience for the whole table.

Anybody can try anything is a superior approach. As you pointed out a post or so back, not everyone min maxes.
Gating Help behind 'proficiencies' is a zero value approach to skill usage and that penalizes team play. But as 5e now reads, in some situations it's not practical to apply the help action and that needs to be left to the Situation and the Table to arrive at 'what makes sense and fun for them'
Hard coding that as a restriction is as bad as hard coding Jump as an action rather than movement.

I have a DM who used to gate skill / ability checks behind proficiencies that didn't even exist. (My brother). It took me to years to teach him how 5e is different from 3.x.

I have a current DM who tends to gate checks behind proficiency: I do not care for it...but it's not a deal breaker and we have a good group.

I think it's reasonable that some checks/Help attempts could be gated by the system. If I try to help Gordon Ramsay in the kitchen when I don't know the first thing about cooking, or help John Rambo lay an ambush for a patrol of marines, or help a hostage negotiator when I have the people skills of a lump of coral, I'm probably going to get in their way moreso than I benefit.

Again, that won't matter as much until we see what KP's plans for the skill system are, but generally speaking I can see the value in that approach for certain checks. I think the "that require proficiency" clause might be good enough for the DM to make a ruling personally, as they are the ones who get to decide if proficiency is the gate on the skill or not (and therefore the Help action.)

[KorvinStarmast]

I think the "that require proficiency" clause might be good enough for the DM to make a ruling personally, as they are the ones who get to decide if proficiency is the gate on the skill or not (and therefore the Help action.) Pointlessly restrictive, and a step backwards to nonsense like this (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html). (If you haven't put points in it you can't do it, which IIRC goes back to AD&D 2e, or in Player Options ...)

[Kane0]

I think it's reasonable that some checks/Help attempts could be gated by the system. If I try to help Gordon Ramsay in the kitchen when I don't know the first thing about cooking, or help John Rambo lay an ambush for a patrol of marines, or help a hostage negotiator when I have the people skills of a lump of coral, I'm probably going to get in their way moreso than I benefit.


Even in Iron Chef there were the guys scurrying around doing the fetching, chopping and cleaning. Helping doesnt have to be doing an identical task, it just has to be doing something... helpful.

Edit: Hostage negotiation is an alright example too, more people talking is just noise so you could make yourself useful by removing distractions or suppressing elements that would otherwise unnecessarily raise the tension.

[Psyren]

Pointlessly restrictive, and a step backwards to nonsense like this (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html). (If you haven't put points in it you can't do it, which IIRC goes back to AD&D 2e, or in Player Options ...)

Not seeing the connection at all. Of course you can attempt Perception/Spot untrained.


Helping doesnt have to be doing an identical task, it just has to be doing something... helpful.

Right, but that's the problem - merely wanting to be helpful is not always enough to be helpful. Can you really not think of any scenario in which someone untrained or untalented trying to help makes things worse?

[Kane0]

Right, but that's the problem - merely wanting to be helpful is not always enough to be helpful. Can you really not think of any scenario in which someone untrained or untalented trying to help makes things worse?

I sure can, but if I had to assume one way or the other I'm on the 'lenient' end as both dev and DM. If it could go either way, then that's why we roll dice.

[Psyren]

I sure can, but if I had to assume one way or the other I'm on the 'lenient' end as both dev and DM. If it could go either way, then that's why we roll dice.

I'm lenient too, but I don't think "roll dice" and "automatic success" should be the only options.

[Kane0]

I'm lenient too, but I don't think "roll dice" and "automatic success" should be the only options.

Just to be clear, 'Automatic success' to help, applying the bonus, not to automatically pass the roll of whatever you're helping with.

[Psyren]

Just to be clear, 'Automatic success' to help, applying the bonus, not to automatically pass the roll of whatever you're helping with.

I know what you meant :smallsmile: that's indeed what I'm talking about. Literally every attempt to help someone do literally anything unerringly conferring advantage is what I can see as reasonable to change.

[warty goblin]

For a lot of things nearly anybody can help, but not all help is equal. For a lot of craft skills having somebody who will stand here and hold this thing just like that can be extremely handy. But that's quite different from somebody you can actually delegate part of the task to, or who can independently solve problems, get and set up tools, and so on, which is generally much more helpful.

[Kane0]

I know what you meant :smallsmile: that's indeed what I'm talking about. Literally every attempt to help someone do literally anything unerringly conferring advantage is what I can see as reasonable to change.

I'm happy to leave it up to the DM. Can you help?
Yes (you're trained, give a reasonable course of action, etc)
Maybe (it's possible but not assured, roll to see!)
No (it's a reflexive check, you're busy/elsewhere, etc)
Gating by proficiency doesn't really work for me, though it could be one criteria in a given situation

Coincidentally, one of the reasons I don't think Guidance works well as a Reaction is it should be following the same logic as Help, providing the +1d4 instead of Advantage (thus stacking) with its own considerations (like the components). For me it works better as a way for a second party member to Help rather than a way to add to reflexive checks like perception/knowledge checks.

[Trask]

I'm happy to leave it up to the DM. Can you help?
Yes (you're trained, give a reasonable course of action, etc)
Maybe (it's possible but not assured, roll to see!)
No (it's a reflexive check, you're busy/elsewhere, etc)
Gating by proficiency doesn't really work for me, though it could be one criteria in a given situation

Coincidentally, one of the reasons I don't think Guidance works well as a Reaction is it should be following the same logic as Help, providing the +1d4 instead of Advantage (thus stacking) with its own considerations (like the components). For me it works better as a way for a second party member to Help rather than a way to add to reflexive checks like perception/knowledge checks.

I agree and I think in these cases the writer's guiding hand can go a long way. Simply stating somewhere in the Help action for ability checks "The DM may restrict the use of this action to characters with proficiency in the relevant skill if he thinks the help of an untrained person would be minimal. For example, a barbarian who hails from far away may have no real assistance to provide a cleric attempting an Intelligence (Religion) check to recall specific religious rites."

Just simply saying "The DM may do this or the DM could choose to do that can go a long way towards opening up the possibility to such a thing, so that it doesn't feel like the DM "nerfing" the characters but still providing some limits to what WotC and seemingly many players see as an issue with the game. Although I suspect that Wotc isnt really interested in "soft" rules much anymore, it has to be code-able into their digital products now, ugh.

[Kane0]

Although I suspect that Wotc isnt really interested in "soft" rules much anymore, it has to be code-able into their digital products now, ugh.

Not sure if it's a case of being unable or unwilling, but either way thankfully we aren't constrained by WotC in this respect (despite their size meaning that's where most flock to making things painful).

[Psyren]

I'm happy to leave it up to the DM. Can you help?
Yes (you're trained, give a reasonable course of action, etc)
Maybe (it's possible but not assured, roll to see!)
No (it's a reflexive check, you're busy/elsewhere, etc)

How is bold not gating by proficiency? I'm totally fine with all this. Not being trained taking you from a Yes to a Maybe is fine.


For a lot of things nearly anybody can help, but not all help is equal. For a lot of craft skills having somebody who will stand here and hold this thing just like that can be extremely handy. But that's quite different from somebody you can actually delegate part of the task to, or who can independently solve problems, get and set up tools, and so on, which is generally much more helpful.

The problem is that in current D&D, all Help is indeed equal (in terms of the end result), and all you have to do is declare you're helping whether your character has any idea what that person is doing or not.

[Kane0]

How is bold not gating by proficiency? I'm totally fine with all this. Not being trained taking you from a Yes to a Maybe is fine.

For me it would be a factor and not the deciding factor, but regardless it seems we agree anyways.

[Brookshw]

Proposal, what if the Help action let you add a straight modifier based on the helping person's modifier in the skill up to half their proficiency bonus?

[Mastikator]

Adding numbers on the fly is fiddly, slows down the game too much.

[stoutstien]

Adding numbers on the fly is fiddly, slows down the game too much.

Yea. If anything I'd like to see help to function as insurance rather than additive. So if you wanted to help somebody you would make your own separate check or test versus the DC using whatever ability/skill that fits the scenario. For example if you're going to help somebody sneak something into someone's pocket and you want to distract them by faking a loss of footing and falling into them.

If the supporting role passes it just prevents low rolls so you treat any value lower than X as Y.

[EggKookoo]

Adding numbers on the fly is fiddly, slows down the game too much.

How is "add a flat value to the original roll" more fiddly than "make an additional roll, to which you add a flat value as part of the core mechanic"?

Or was there some other proposal earlier that's more complex than the RAW Help mechanic that I'm missing?

[stoutstien]

How is "add a flat value to the original roll" more fiddly than "make an additional roll, to which you add a flat value as part of the core mechanic"?

Or was there some other proposal earlier that's more complex than the RAW Help mechanic that I'm missing?
It's a weird way our minds work. The die is what we will focus on because it's unknown where the static amount is just that. Even something as simple as adding a secondary static value that is sometimes applicable increases the cognitive load. Especially if you are adding stuff to the total and widening the range of results.

It also messes with the math.

[Tanarii]

I'm happy to leave it up to the DM. Can you help?
Yes (you're trained, give a reasonable course of action, etc)
Maybe (it's possible but not assured, roll to see!)
No (it's a reflexive check, you're busy/elsewhere, etc)
Gating by proficiency doesn't really work for me, though it could be one criteria in a given situation


I agree and I think in these cases the writer's guiding hand can go a long way. Simply stating somewhere in the Help action for ability checks "The DM may restrict the use of this action to characters with proficiency in the relevant skill if he thinks the help of an untrained person would be minimal. For example, a barbarian who hails from far away may have no real assistance to provide a cleric attempting an Intelligence (Religion) check to recall specific religious rites."Unless BF or D&Done changes it, in 5e proficiency isn't training.

Training is encompassed both by the unmodified ability score and by proficiency.

The unmodified ability score is a mix of natural talent and training.

Proficiency is any kind of focus, including training. It can also be things like natural talent in a subset of the things an ability score represents, being bad at everything an ability score represents except one thing (e.g. Int 8 + investigation = poorly educated but normal deductive capacity), or even magically/divinely granted ability.

So if you want to gate something by training, gating it by proficiency is not the correct method.

[Trask]

Unless BF or D&Done changes it, in 5e proficiency isn't training.

Training is encompassed both by the unmodified ability score and by proficiency.

The unmodified ability score is a mix of natural talent and training.

Proficiency is any kind of focus, including training. It can also be things like natural talent in a subset of the things an ability score represents, being bad at everything an ability score represents except one thing (e.g. Int 8 + investigation = poorly educated but normal deductive capacity), or even magically/divinely granted ability.

So if you want to gate something by training, gating it by proficiency is not the correct method.

I don't see why not. If Proficiency is neatly abstracted enough to represent some enhanced ability in a certain area then theres no reason why shouldn't gate by it. In my example, the Barbarian may have a good intelligence score representing both his natural ability and his education (probably more like "worldliness" for a barbarian), but without Proficiency in the specific area of the Religion skill, he has no real experience on the subject and so can't Help with it.

Admittedly this applies unevenly across skills; for example, almost anyone should be able to help with a Persuasion check as long as they are contributing to the conversation, and there certainly could be cases where the Barbarian can assist the Cleric with Religion, and this is why I advocate for a judicious application of DM fiat and not a hard rule that creates unsatisfying edge cases.

[Tanarii]

I donIn my example, the Barbarian may have a good intelligence score representing both his natural ability and his education (probably more like "worldliness" for a barbarian), but without Proficiency in the specific area of the Religion skill, he has no real experience on the subject and so can't Help with it.
But this is false, generally. It may be specific for your Barbarian, because that's how you've defined it as a player. But another Barbarian player who for some reason invested in Int 14 can define it as "trained in all Lore, deductive techniques, and memory enhancing techniques to the tune of +2". And that player is identically trained yo your Barbarian who has +2 Prof bonus in Religion and has defined it as coming from training.

So if the DM then comes along and lets your proficiency Barbarian roll but the Int Barbarian doesn't get to roll, because training, that DM is Doing It Wrong(TM) (houseruling against the Int char). And if D&Done or BF builds it into Help because training, without redefining what ability scores and proficiency are, that Dev is also Doing It Wrong(TM) (creating an incoherent rule set).

[EggKookoo]

So if the DM then comes along and lets your proficiency Barbarian roll but the Int Barbarian doesn't get to roll, because training, that DM is Doing It Wrong(TM) (houseruling against the second char).

Arguably not (blue text acknowledged regardless).

If CharA says "my prof is the result of XYZ academic/analytic training" and CharB says "my prof is the result of a more general aptitude combined with some natural talent," there's nothing wrong with the DM deciding a particular instance of a task reasonably requires XYZ academic/analytic experience and prof-gate CharB out of the option to make a roll.

Proficiency doesn't always mean training, but it can mean it in certain cases without breaking any rules.

[Atranen]

I know what you meant :smallsmile: that's indeed what I'm talking about. Literally every attempt to help someone do literally anything unerringly conferring advantage is what I can see as reasonable to change.

Is this really how you see the current system? It's never been that in my experience at the table. GMs have always disallowed help actions when it's not reasonable to do so.

Really the "gate things behind proficiency" mechanic is a statement that bounded accuracy has failed with respect to the skill system, and an acknowledgement that you need to graft on some additional restrictions to make the verisimilitude work.

[animorte]

Training is encompassed both by the unmodified ability score and by proficiency.

The unmodified ability score is a mix of natural talent and training.

So if you want to gate something by training, gating it by proficiency is not the correct method.
I think a bit of generic training applies to the ability score while focused training applies to proficiency.

But if we're drawing hard lines, natural talent would apply to ability score while training would apply to proficiency.

[Tanarii]

I think a bit of generic training applies to the ability score while focused training applies to proficiency.

But if we're drawing hard lines, natural talent would apply to ability score while training would apply to proficiency.
That's not how 5e currently defines them. A player might define it that way for a specific character, or a DM might in session 0 as a house rule.

A +2 bonus is some mix of various factors including training regardless of source.

[stoutstien]

But this is false, generally. It may be specific for your Barbarian, because that's how you've defined it as a player. But another Barbarian player who for some reason invested in Int 14 can define it as "trained in all Lore, deductive techniques, and memory enhancing techniques to the tune of +2". And that player is identically trained yo your Barbarian who has +2 Prof bonus in Religion and has defined it as coming from training.

So if the DM then comes along and lets your proficiency Barbarian roll but the Int Barbarian doesn't get to roll, because training, that DM is Doing It Wrong(TM) (houseruling against the Int char). And if D&Done or BF builds it into Help because training, without redefining what ability scores and proficiency are, that Dev is also Doing It Wrong(TM) (creating an incoherent rule set).

They're infact wrong (no blue text) as far as 5e goes because ability checks exist and may or may not add Prof from a skill not the other way around.

[ahyangyi]

I see this all the time with stealth and insight checks. "I try to stealth past the guard" and a roll without a description of how. Or "I roll insight to see if they are lying", without doing anything active to catch them in a lie. I expect OneD&D will have "I roll to influence" being more common than in 5e.

Wait.



Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone's next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.


How exactly do you expect one to roleplay "gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms"...?

[Sparky McDibben]

How exactly do you expect one to roleplay "gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms"...?

"Tell me what you're looking for." If there's an established tell, that may be an automatic success or a roll with advantage. Otherwise, just tell me how you're trying to catch them out.

[ahyangyi]

If there's an established tell, then it's not using the Insight skill. Not in the sense of "automatic success", but in the sense of "I'm not rolling Athletics to see how long I can jump, if I'm actually flying across the chasm", i.e., sidestepping the need of using that skill at all.

Conversely, if I'm trying to use the Insight skill, then I (the player) should have no idea what's the tell. I'm waiting for you, the DM, to tell me.

[Psyren]

+1 to ahyangyi - the entire point of Insight is not needing to know the specific stimulus your character picks up on.


GMs have always disallowed help actions when it's not reasonable to do so.

That's not how the rule is presented; Help is just a basic action with no check of its own, so automatic execution once attempted is the default. Do you know DMs who also randomly disallow Dodging or Disengaging?


Really the "gate things behind proficiency" mechanic is a statement that bounded accuracy has failed with respect to the skill system, and an acknowledgement that you need to graft on some additional restrictions to make the verisimilitude work.

This is a leap I can't begin to follow.

[Sparky McDibben]

If there's an established tell, then it's not using the Insight skill. Not in the sense of "automatic success", but in the sense of "I'm not rolling Athletics to see how long I can jump, if I'm actually flying across the chasm", i.e., sidestepping the need of using that skill at all.

Conversely, if I'm trying to use the Insight skill, then I (the player) should have no idea what's the tell. I'm waiting for you, the DM, to tell me.

Disagree - player expertise activates character expertise. I don't bypass the need for a roll until you as the player prove that (by telling me the thing you're looking for that makes the roll unnecessary). If you don't know what you're looking for, I'll allow the roll, but you're not getting as much information.

[Atranen]

Wait.


How exactly do you expect one to roleplay "gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms"...?


"Tell me what you're looking for." If there's an established tell, that may be an automatic success or a roll with advantage. Otherwise, just tell me how you're trying to catch them out.

Something like Sparky says here. If they want to go above and beyond, they could ask a particular question designed to probe a possible lie, and specifically watch the answer.

The kind of use you suggest seems more like passive Insight to me than something that calls for a roll.


That's not how the rule is presented; Help is just a basic action with no check of its own, so automatic execution once attempted is the default. Do you know DMs who also randomly disallow Dodging or Disengaging?

I wasn't asking "how it was presented" (which is of course subject to reasonable GM interpretation at all times). I'm asking if you've really seen this at the table.

Do things like:

Player: "I want to help them decipher the runes!"
GM: "Your character can't help in this circumstance, because they haven't been exposed to this language before. "
Player: "The Help action SAYS I can always help, with automatic execution, so I can help. They get advantage".

occur at your table? Or do you find DMs exercise reasonable discretion about when helping is allowed?

[ahyangyi]

Something like Sparky says here. If they want to go above and beyond, they could ask a particular question designed to probe a possible lie, and specifically watch the answer.

The kind of use you suggest seems more like passive Insight to me than something that calls for a roll.

Alright, fine with that: do something to trigger an active roll, observe and use the passives. As long as you don't ask the player what particular stimulus they are looking for, I'm fine.

[Psyren]

I wasn't asking "how it was presented" (which is of course subject to reasonable GM interpretation at all times). I'm asking if you've really seen this at the table.

Do things like:

Player: "I want to help them decipher the runes!"
GM: "Your character can't help in this circumstance, because they haven't been exposed to this language before. "
Player: "The Help action SAYS I can always help, with automatic execution, so I can help. They get advantage".

occur at your table? Or do you find DMs exercise reasonable discretion about when helping is allowed?

So because I have sensible DMs, the rule doesn't need to be clear? Isn't that the very Rule Zero fallacy you keep going on about?

[Witty Username]

This playtest makes me feel weird. Like by its own merits I don't think it's particularly good, but at the same time it feels eons better than the One D&D playtest because it is actually trying to be something.

The One playtest has had alot of experimental stuff though in the general rules sections. Sure the the jump nonsense was a miss but it had actually functional stealth rules in there.
--
Yeah I am with the confusion on the shift to rules vs rulings. Unless what is meant is a shift from innane nonsense vs rulings. Most of the playtest is to codify the existing 5e rules into something actually readable, the One D&D stealth rules, for example, still require and depend on DM adjudication (rulings). The 5e stealth rules are a waste of printer ink for all they do.

[Atranen]

So because I have sensible DMs, the rule doesn't need to be clear? Isn't that the very Rule Zero fallacy you keep going on about?

So that's a no, the pedantic rules lawyering you describe in your post does not occur in your games.

In this case, I'm hoping for a statement like "in some cases the GM may decide you may need proficiency to help (example, example)". That would be better than the current version (too explicitly permissive) or the revised version (too explicitly restrictive).

[catagent101]

The second playtest packet has been released (https://koboldpress.com/playtest-packet-2-is-here-for-project-black-flag/) (direct link (https://koboldpress.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Black%2BFlag%2BPlaytest%2BPacket%2B2.pdf))

Also a direct link to the first packet (https://d2qwlo0rgdq9bs.cloudfront.net/Black+Flag+Playtest+Packet+1.pdf) for convenience.

Haven't read it (and idk if I will since I have other things to do), but at a glance it seems like a logical progression from the first one we saw.

[Kane0]

Still keeping a quiet eye on things, i think i like last stand as an alternative to second wind. Really could use the return of Bloodied though

[stoutstien]

Eh. Not a direction I'm interested in. More meta currencies, action economy overhead just for the sake of it, and lack of general goals.

I think they'd be a hundred times better off going the other direction and working towards the simplicity of 5e's roots.

[Asmotherion]

5E wasn't my cup of tea to begin with, though it was an enjoyable romp in simple and low-powered (relative to other editions) for a while, but that grew stale, and I have no love for WotC at this time.

So I've got no real interest in "5E, but with someone else's branding."

I was VERY much looking forward to a new game, or at least a fresh take.

^synopsis of exactly my thoughts right here^

[Snowbluff]

I really have to wonder what the utility of all of this text is. If there is an attempt to pad the new word count, I am not amused.


Bound in Blood. When your familiar first appears, your hit-
point maximum decreases by one. If you permanently dismiss
your familiar or it is otherwise permanently destroyed, you hit-
point maximum returns to normal. This reduction can’t be offset
by any means as long as your familiar lives.

What does making the caster lose a hit point accomplish other than adding one more thing to track on the sheet, and adding a paragraph to the text here? :smallsigh:

[Psyren]

I really have to wonder what the utility of all of this text is. If there is an attempt to pad the new word count, I am not amused.


What does making the caster lose a hit point accomplish other than adding one more thing to track on the sheet, and adding a paragraph to the text here? :smallsigh:

As best I can tell, it's their attempt to balance the fact that their version of Find Create Familiar doesn't consume its component. The thought seems to be "well the caster has to lose something to keep this from being repeatedly spammable, even though we put spam protection elsewhere in the spell anyway."