Black Flag So What's In Kobold Press' BLACK FLAG First Playtest?

Black Flag, the codename for Kobold Press' new open TTRPG, announced during the height of the recent OGL controversy as an open alternative to 5E, has put out the first playtest packet. It's 12-page document of character creation rules. So what's inside?

The introduction summarises character creation, defining 5E concepts like level, hit dice, and so on. It introduces the game as being backward-compatible with 5E.

Black Flag -- like Level Up: Advanced 5E, and Ancestry & Culture--divides the 5E concept of 'race' and 'subrace' into inherited and cultural elements. Black Flag goes with the terms Lineage and Heritage.

It goes on to present the Dwarf, Elf, and Human, along with a choice of two heritage traits for each--the heritage traits for dwarf, for example, are Fireforge and Stone. Elves get Cloud and Grove, while humans get Nomadic and Cosmopolitan. You can choose any heritage for your lineage, though. These are analogous to 5E's 'subraces', although the inherited/learned elements are separated out -- Cloud Elves are a lot like High Elves, and Grove Elves are a lot like Wood Elves, for example.

Following that are two backgrounds -- Scholar, and Soldier. They each give the usual array of proficiencies plus a 'talent'.

Magic, martial, and technical talents are essentially feats. You get a talent from your background, and can substitute an ability score increase for one.

The playtest feels to me much like a 5E written in their own words, but with 5E's 'race/subrace' structure replaced with 'lineage/heritage', the biggest thing being that the heritage (what was subrace in 5E) is cultural.

As a disclaimer, I do of course publish Level Up: Advanced 5E, which shares the exact same goal as Kobold Press' project (BTW, check out the new A5ESRD site!) It will be interesting to see how the approaches diverge; while both are backward-compatible, they already have different ways to handle what 5E calls race -- Level Up has you choose a heritage (your inherited species, basically), and any of 30+ cultures (learned stuff from where you grew up). Black Flag goes with lineage (again, your inherited species), and a choice of heritages for each lineage. And the bestselling 5E book Ancestry & Culture on DTRPG, uses those terms -- so there's plenty of options to choose your heritage/culture, lineage/heritage, or ancestry/culture!

Whatever happens, the future certainly contains a choice of open 5E alternatives!

 

[Minigiant]

What do you mean by 2023 5e?

Ideas, concepts, flavor links, and mechanical skeletons being pitched and discussed for D&D 5e or OneD&D today.

For example, giving heritages an open choice of proficiencies rather than granting a listed set of specific ones.

 

[demoss]

Consider that there are already at least two 5E-alike but heavier games out there. If you're going to change anything, think about making the game lighter rather than heavier.

I'm 100% with this. The main reason my two last games weren't 5e is that I want a lighter system.

I have some players who are super into figuring out their build and some who are not. A heavy system means either I have to pull a lot of weight for the not-so-carefully-built characters to stand up, or the players can get frustrated because they're overshadowed.

A heavy system also means that if the players don't know their abilities inside out the play grinds to halt unless I do. Everyone at the table is a busy adult, most don't have the time to dig into their abilities, and with million splatbooks and tons of crunch neither do I - or that time is taken away from more productive session prep time.

With lighters systems there is generally speaking less scope for optimization, and it's also much easier for the GM to even things out.

I at least would totally love a 5e with 80% of crunch trimmed off.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I feel like I'm the only one who has always felt like 5e starting stats are too high once species ASI are added. I prefer the 'zero to hero' trope. Rather than 'hero to even better hero'.

Only being able to go down to 8 in point buy is another frustration which seems to be continuing across. Having a weak score of 6 or 7 makes for fun rp opportunities.

 

[Nylanfs]

I realize we need to keep alignment, it is part of the rules.....but I'd like a comment or two about it being a DIAL, not a switch. NO ONE (outside a few creatures) is purely lawful or purely neutral or whatever (please don't turn this into a thread about alignment, I'm making a suggestion to KP here about what I'd like to see in their rules).

<Insert argument about alignment here>

 

[DEFCON 1]

I feel like I'm the only one who has always felt like 5e starting stats are too high once species ASI are added. I prefer the 'zero to hero' trope. Rather than 'hero to even better hero'.

Only being able to go down to 8 in point buy is another frustration which seems to be continuing across. Having a weak score of 6 or 7 makes for fun rp opportunities.

You can roleplay an ability as weak regardless of what the number is.

After all... what's the roleplay difference of a "low intelligence" creature that has a 6 rather than an 8? You'll be playing the character as dumb regardless. And mechanically all the number is doing is reducing your d20 roll by 1 point comparatively, so that does barely any change.

There is little functional difference in how your stats play when the difference between a "low" stat and an "above-average" stat is like 3 modifier points. Which means when making checks your "above-average" character is only succeeding an additional 15% of the time over the supposed crappy character. And this doesn't even take into account the full 1-20 point swing of the d20 roll... that can make even crappy PCs beating out above-average ones on checks numerous times per adventure.

If a person wants their PC to act and feel like they have some hardship in one of their abilities... the only real way to see that play out is by intentionally roleplaying and acting your character in that way-- making choices that are poor-- intentionally be a klutz if you have "low DEX", intentionally make bad decisions if you have "low WIS", intentionally be obnoxious or irritating if you have "low CHA". Because trying to rely on just the game mechanics to do it ain't going to work.

You will rarely see any appreciable difference with one person rolling 1d20+1 for INT checks and the other player rolling 1d20-2. Mechanically they're going to seem pretty much the same.

 

[Reynard]

I at least would totally love a 5e with 80% of crunch trimmed off.

Have you looked at 5 Torches Deep?

 

[Remathilis]

That is a very astute observation ...

And perhaps a bit of a misguided one.

Pathfinder got huge because WotC took 4e in such a radical design shift that Paizo could sell an older edition of D&D as new against WotC's version that was wildly different.

Black Flag isn't competing against a wildly different edition of D&D, it will be competing against One D&D at right around the same release window. And both systems are basically updated 5e with an eye on backwards compatibility, which means they are trying to do the same things. They are even doing some of the same innovations (1st level powers tied to backgrounds, removal of racial ASI).

I realize this is just a sliver of the grand design, comparing packet one of BF to packet one of 1DnD, I don't see much difference. What I want to see is design space ceded by WotC to be explored: new classes, new magic systems, etc. I'm not interested in an alternative cleric which has access to the Beer domain as much as I am an invoker-like blaster/healer type priest compared to the doctor/warrior cleric D&D already gives me. A shaman who summons spirits rather than a wild shaping druid. A warrior class with tactical options beyond attack (or cast magic). Psionics, runes, witchcraft, an artificer that actually builds things, etc.

Because unless WotC continues to shoot themselves in the foot for the next two years, I don't see a need for a 5e Pathfinder. I do see a great need though for a 5e Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, a system with unique archetypes and innovative alternatives to WotC's safer design principles.

I await future packets to see what else is coming through.

 

[Mistwell]

What exactly is someone to "playtest" here? What kind of feedback would be useful for this kind of thing?

 

[ART!]

Quick thoughts:

• I like "Improvements" as a collective term for ASIs and Talents. It's clear language for one of the main ways a character improves.
• I like that Human's have the "Ambitious" trait. I have no idea how much they're going to get into a default setting, but to me Ambitious humans implies humans who are very much aware that they have no inherent magical powers and are surrounded by lineages that do.

 

[darjr]

What exactly is someone to "playtest" here? What kind of feedback would be useful for this kind of thing?

I would like KP to post the questions from the survey at some point. So we can see them and consider them in our playtest. Or at least an idea. It’s one of the things I didn’t like about the ONE pt.