Project Black Flag playtest has begun!

[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 the wiki/SRD for it?

[Brookshw]

Is this 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 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. (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 ...)