Project Black Flag playtest has begun!

[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 (direct link)

Also a direct link to the first packet 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?

[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?

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."