Forge of Foes, Valikan Clans, Black Flag, Nexus 5e, A5E Trials and Treasure - Lazy RPG Talk Show

[@paulsavas2394]

Great video. Looking forward to your Kickstarter!

[@HouseDM]

1000% agree with you on the whole removing the arbitrary ability score numbers. Bonuses are all that matters. Thanks for the news Mike!

[@bryan__m]

I'm 100% for it except every time I think through it I can't think of a good way to do it while keeping balance exactly the same. What do you do with the +1 score bonuses from ASIs, feats, and races? And not as big a deal, but you'd also have to change the (VERY) few rules that rely on the score, such as jumping or multiclassing. Probably at the end of the day the only way to do it would be to give everyone a boost, even if it's minor.

[@jeannot7784]

I've just read the 4 free pdf (drive-through rpg) Fateforge books and it's just crazy! You have a complete 5e alternative for free. The equivalent of the player, the monster, a book for magic and a world encyclopedia. It's just amazing the art is fantastic and it's packed with amazing ideas and improvements for 5e. I recommend those to everyone, simply for the art it's amazing.

[@enjakerator]

I am so psyched for this book! I’m already using the preview. THX!

[@SirWolfalot]

My issue with the Black Flag playtest was the fact that you can’t test it without using the existing 5e rules: “hi, we are making a NEW system that is dependent upon 5e to play!” They should have created more content so that it could stand on its own! I know it’s supposed to be 5e compatible, but at this point it more useless than OneD&D material.

[@nickhoward7419]

I just became a patron. First time using patreon lol. You're worth it. And holy hell I'm seriously considering running a campaign in the city of arches!

[@satiricalbard1]

Glad to see Level Up's Trials and Treasures getting some airtime and love. It really is what the DMG should have been.

[@jameswalsh4113]

This is the main stuff I come to you for…so excited for a whole book!!

[@miguelromero4542]

Thanks for all the content you are sharing

[@VinStJohn]

Roll20 actually very recently introduced a "print" button on their 5e character sheet, and while it's not perfect, IMO it's excellent. I like it because it lets me create pregen characters for one shots that include ALL the rules text for each character feature (it expands to make room, in a way that form fillable PDFs generally don't).

[@SlyFlourish]

Very interesting!

[@BionicBuddhaX]

Roll20 needs a separate character builder -- yes! Preach!

[@blueheronfishing]

Mike, thank you… the new book sounds like the tool I was yearning for a few years ago when I started as a GM. Cheers!

[@StabbySideways]

Black Flag is fine, IMO. They said they'd make an OGL-free 5E-compatible RPG, and it looks like that's exactly what they're doing. The goal was to let people use Kobold Press D&D products without having to rely on WotC's core books, not to create a new edition or a radically different game (like MCDM).

[@fuzzlemacfuzz]

I think this is what most people moaning about the playtest are missing. They want maximum compatibility not only to 5e, but also all of the products they already have released. Imagine the outcry if BF was not compatible with all of their other books and needed a fresh update. It would drive customers away.

[@devildham]

It seems to me that with 5e SRD in Creative Commons, the "one system to rally around" is...5e. In a very real way, it's not WOTC's anymore, and if in the next 5 to 7 years WOTC were to move on to a completely new engine, the "5e mod community" could continue on without them.

[@geoffdewitt6845]

Problem is a LOT of 5e isn't in CC. Check the feats, for example. Or literally almost every subclass.

[@devildham]

@Geoff DeWitt True, but the things that are missing are the exact things 3rd party publishers tend to replace / update anyway. There's hundreds of monsters, feats, weapsons, spells, classes, and subclasses not to mention whole settings created by 3PP that are as good or better than anything that WOTC has put out for 5e and there's absolutely nothing preventing you from bringing your Battlemaster (for example) into the world of Grimhollow or Exandria.

[@geoffdewitt6845]

@@devildham And per KP's design diary, that's exactly what they're doing.

[@wirelesstkd]

@@geoffdewitt6845 that doesn’t matter now that the design language IS Creative Commons. Any company can build their own feats and subclass, including their own versions of feats and subclasses based on the ones published by WotC. They can’t be word for word identical, but they can certainly be similar. We’ve now seen how both Kobold Press and Level Up have done a version of War Caster, for example (Level Up’s is almost identical, mechanically, to D&D I believe). As long as a publisher is free to use the design mangy, we’re good. It’s okay that the subclasses and feats are WotC’s. That’s what a publisher is creating and adding with their book.

[@geoffdewitt6845]

@@wirelesstkd I see. Please feel free to publish mechanically near-identical versions of all the Xanathar's subclasses.

[@dungeondr]

For me an archetype is essentially the same as a characters class and doesn't need to be defined separately. In fact my own 5e rewrite called "7e" (yes, there's another one!) I'm redefining the classes as narrative archetypes since I think that works so much better for helping players understand the fantasy a class represents. Fighter = Action Hero, Rogue = Trickster, Monk = Warrior, Cleric = Paragon etc I find in a lot of ways the fantasy veneer 5e places on the classes actually leads to confusion and unfortunate pigeon holes like rogue = murder hobo, cleric= healer, bard = problem etc Save fantasy and flavour for subclasses, keep classes/archetypes as setting neutral.

[@donotinteract7851]

The Black Flag playtest left me feeling really disengaged. A couple of great ideas in there but so much of it felt like it was treading the same ground as 5e, which raises the question ‘why would I choose to play this over 5e?’ When the OGL exodus happened a couple months back I saw a few people predicting that we were in for a new slew of heartbreaker games, and so far the Black Flag playtest feels like one of them.

[@Konradius001]

You would choose this over 5e because in one year the 5e books will cease to be printed. That's what was the reason for the Pathfinder split-off. The 3e/3,5e D&D books were becoming unavailable, so any 3rd party stuff from Paizo would become unplayable. That's what has started this Heartbreaker War. 5e is dead, long live the next 5e compatible system. It could be 5.5e/6e/One DND from WotC, or Black Flag from Kobold Press, or Levelup advanced 5e, or several other as of yet unrevealed contenders. Or it can be Pathfinder 2e or a non-5e compatible version, like what MCDM is doing. But the one system it will not be is the original 5e.

[@donotinteract7851]

@@Konradius001 this assumes that every other 3rd party will move over to Black Flag rather than stick with the OGL, which is now staying in place. It it’s the case that everyone moves over then you’d maybe be right, but I get the feeling that Black Flag will end up being an empty dance floor. Even if third parties move to Black Flag, since this system is compatible with 5e, it follows that all the 3rd party content for Black Flag will also be 5e compatible. I’ve been a huge fan of Kobold Press over the past few years but this feels redundant. I don’t think the conditions are there for this to be another Pathfinder situation.

[@Konradius001]

@@donotinteract7851 There will be no more 5e after the new edition of D&D launches. '5e compatble' will mean various degrees of compatibility with several distinct systems. You see redundancy because you seem not to realize that D&D 5e will cease to exist.

[@lonic123]

Thanks

[@xSeandaviS]

Your next book from the preview looks like the most useful 5e supplement I've ever seen, definitely backing.

[@JefferyBlack]

I wanted to address the ability scores vs bonuses only debate. I've thought about it a lot over the years. I'm definitely in favor of keeping abiliy scores and having them do something besides provide bonuses. Being a legacy mechanic that is widely known within gaming - and even beyond it, to an extent - is a feature, not a bug. It's familiar, and is one of those things that make D&D, D&D. That recognizability is a strength and, potentially, a tool. So put it to work, don't discard it. Surely someone can figure out a way to get them to carry more weight on their own.

[@darwinsfolly2117]

Five Torches Deep does exactly this with its ability scores and modifiers

[@JefferyBlack]

@@darwinsfolly2117 thanks for the heads-up!

[@bryan__m]

I think, too, that "having an odd ability score for 4 levels suck" isn't really good enough of a reason to change it. Because if you drop scores, then instead of getting half progress after 4 levels, you'll get no progress until 8 levels. And still probably have to either track the half ability scores, or only give bonuses at 8 and 16, or some other way to avoid power creep.

[@wirelesstkd]

There are a couple of small areas where getting rid of ability scores could mess things up for backward compatibility. You can handle it in the rules, but they exist. An example would be magic items that set your ability score a given number, such as a Headband of Intellect. If you’re a player who’s never played D&D and only ever played Black Flag, imagine what you’re thinking when you discover an item that says “your Intelligence score becomes 19 while you are attuned to this headband,” when a typical intelligence score can’t go past 5. It’s like… “holy cow, this is the most amazing magic item ever!”

[@rpgamerous]

Up to this point, most of the criticism I've seen of Black Flag has still been some variation of "oh, it's just 5e." And I guess that means that people weren't paying attention when they announced Black Flag, when they said it would be 5e compatible, and compatible with the 5e stuff they've released so far. I think people need to ask themselves what they expect from something that says it'll be 5e compatible, because I think it probably has to look a lot like 5e.

[@gvanbooven]

Add my vote to getting rid of ability scores and just using modifiers! The only real arguments I've heard in favor is the "legacy" of the ability scores and that some players like the odd number scores since they can get two bumps when splitting the 2-point ASI. But the elegance of having a sheet that rids itself of needless numbers is worth it. There is a reason THAC0 vanished - simple is usually better.

[@benjaminbradley78]

Lightning 5e?!? That looks really cool. The number of player options is too much for my taste and pushed me to explore OSR. But all my friends are fairly locked into 5e so this might be a good balance. I want to play OSR style adventures with 5e mechanics (I have Barrowmaze 5e version) but the available player options just nullify the OSR playstyle (darkvision everywhere, light cantrip, goodberry etc).

[@qarsiseer]

Have you bought Five Torches Deep yet? It’s an OSR like that uses basic 5e mechanics like the proficiency bonus. I’d recommend it to branch players out!

[@berkaysln]

You can check Darker Dungeons from Giffyglpyh if you want. Has some fixes for that problematic features, like Light Cantrip requires concentration, 0 level Rookie characters, Low light Vision instead of Darkvision, etc.

[@geoffdewitt6845]

PREACH

[@euansmith3699]

How Darkvision should work, "You can see in low light like it is bright light. You can see in darkness like it is darkness." 😄👍

[@michelerenae9998]

Have you taken a look at Shadowdark, there is a free preview online somewhere. Its from Arcane Library. BTW, no darkvision at all! I think a lot of it looks interesting.

[@mateofantasma]

Yes, please, get rid of scores, just work with the bonus. No need for legacy mechanics that make things wonky for no reason. It is 2023, come on.

[@sylvaincousineau5073]

My only problem with BF playtest is that it not a playtest , it only crumbs of a playtest . How can i give my impressions if the car dealer send me on the road to test drive with only one wheel of the car ? 🤷‍♂

[@GreenThingonTV]

A better analogy would be that 5e is the car's frame, engine and drive train. BF (and 6e since it uses the same playtest principles) are a different chassis.

[@zionich]

There is a difference in your comparison between Black Flag and Level Up 5e, which reflects my initial reaction. As a DM, I need to know what Black Flag will do to make me want to run it over D&D one. This matters because if I don't change "systems," my players will not either. At least with Level Up 5e, I know it's giving me different tools. I understand it's early, but I feel that appealing to the GM/DM's should be a priority.

[@CharlesKhan]

Lazy RPG talk show 👀

[@el_tejon383]

I think that the meh for this play test just shows how good the base 5e is and that there is not much to improve other than small things that individuals independently may have strong feelings about but don’t really change the overall feeling of the game. So not much really changes because you can’t modify “perfection” and so people end up feeling let down. And sorry my listener question was soooo long… David W.

[@bryan__m]

I'm sure there's no good data for this, but I bet if you look at the people who discuss D&D to death on forums and comment sections and discord servers and compare them to the total population of people who play D&D with any sort of regularity you'll find 2 things. (A) That first group of people is exceedingly small in comparison. (B) That first group is the only one interested in large changes to the game. Most people play a game as written, maybe with a tweak here or there (especially with rules learned through tribal knowledge), but when was the last time you ever heard about a group of people wanting to overhaul chess or Monopoly or Euchre?

[@HunterMayer]

Pretty cool. I always like spicing up a unit here and there with a special. Add a Swolebold that is just a bruiser and doesn't play but and run like the other kobolds. Or that one guy is just impossible to hit because their son dodgy (there is that whole series of books 'the monsters know what their doing' type attitude (and that's a good thing imo). My recent favorite slicing was the highly acrobatic tre top living goblin tribe. These specials used sparingly and even occasionally overused (everything has a special! Or two!) has kept everyone guessing without just making the game a wtf (Not to say I have not gone too far and crossed the WTF line. But I am an adventurous DM not afraid to try something out even if failure is possible.) The players expect the unexpected, and sometimes they wonder if they expected static encounter was as it seemed on the surface was truly what it was... I think I may just be building a paranoid player base, but those 'spicing' builds a lot of tension and creates a lot of emergent play opportunity you wouldn't ever have seen otherwise in a static game system. It can really make a game feel new again. It adds dimension to a static space and can tickle that I'm a new player and I don't know what's going to happen next feeling without going to overboard. It's so playful, this really plays into that in a very helpful way! Not going to lie, I've gone too far and there will always be players who get upset that the static element that they often lean on as a crutch as their superpower do not like this. I got a couple in the groups I play in, But they're tolerant of non-static elements appearing now and again. And even when overused and everything is non-static... Look I made them fight through an arena of non-static special bearing monsters. Which then turned into Intel gathering rp opportunities. But I didn't hear come here to talk about myself! I'm kinda stoked to get my hands on your take on this and add it to my quiver!!!

[@Silkspar]

There 3 things that it seems everyone missed: luck points, dice chains, and signaling better (maybe even mechanical) support for the exploration and social pillars. I really hope all the negative reviews don't make them back down from dice chains. Savage worlds wasn't my jam, but I think dice chains can add some much needed horizontal progression. I'm a little concerned about the CC immunity given by "mental fortitude" as it signals it's not ok for the NPCs/creatures to have the same capabilities as the PCs. I understand why it is there, but are there to be no consequences for bad planning, zero planning or failure of any kind? PCs in 5e are already nearly invincible, should BF just adopt 7th sea's (I think that's right) mechanic of the PC doesn't die until the Player says they do?

[@MannonMartin]

I'll have to read the playtest. My initial reaction to "luck points" is negative, though. I've just never liked systems that try to actually model luck as a supernatural force that gives advantages to certain people. Here and there I've come across shows or stories that do it and make it sound neat, but I don't like it in games in general... though that's just a personal bias.

[@Silkspar]

@@MannonMartin I suspect it's more a meta currency like hero points in PF2 but it could swing more DCC. We'll have to wait.

[@vernondito]

7th Sea (2e) heroes can't be killed by brute squads & mooks. Only a Villain with a danger point can kill them. It's a very dramatic moment in a 7th sea game.

[@berkaysln]

Forge of Foes looks fantastic. I occasionally use Giffyglyph's Monster Maker, but it feels too much from time to time, I like your lazy approach :D

[@seanhavern2384]

I think "natural language" is a generally bad approach to writing rules. I understand that it gives the impression of making things more understandable, but in many cases, it leads to debates over what a word means. Natural language can be and often is ambiguous. For example, both the teleportation spell and Sending spell use the word familiar as a qualifier and limiting factor. The generally accepted rule for sending is that familiar means someone you are aware of, while familiar is far more limited in teleport. Both are reasonable interpretations using natural language and ambiguity is something that does not help rules. We want hard ironclad rules and then the DM/GM can change them if they want. When you use codified and well-defined language, like the tags in PF2E it makes it much easier to understand what the rules actually mean. The downside is that players need to cross-reference terms against an appendix but this means flipping pages in a book or PDF, its worth it for the added clarity.

[@TheChrismhare]

This KIckstarter looks like it's going to be a dragon's hoard of GM advice, and it's the kind that is buried deeper, under the dragon's superficial top layers. You and your party has slayed the dragon and dug through the mounds of coins, gems and magical items bypassing them all. You found the primordial sacred, legendary treasure that many have tried to reach but failed. Not only have you successfully found this treasure, you're f*&$#ng sharing it! lol ;) Kudos

[@paulbigbee]

Unless the raw attribute scores have some actual game utility, just use a selection of bonuses. Other really excellent games have a use for the scores (DCC and Forbidden Lands use them as a resource). Very weird that 5E is getting a regeneration and we still can't fix this. I hope we can also clear up the confusion of character level, spell level and spell slots (an irritating source of cognitive stress for every new player I introduce to D&D).

[@fuzzlemacfuzz]

Legacy players like rolling 4d6 for stats. I agree though, bonuses would be better.

[@gvanbooven]

I have a veteran player who has avoided playing a caster in 5e for a long time simply because of how confusing things get related to spell levels, slots, known, and prepared spells. The duplication of the term level for multiple things also doesn't help. I also think there way too many spells.

[@83ericp]

I love all the 5e Kickstarters that are coming out this year. Should we be concerned that by the time we receive the books (late 2023) OneD&D will make a lot of the content (mostly character options) quickly incompatible in 2024?

[@SirGambitRocks]

Only if you plan on actually moving to 1d&d. At this point it's the least likely game for me to pick up

[@Keovar]

I also hope that we get a few mostly-compatible systems we can mix parts of; been thinking since I got copies of Level Up and Pathfinder 2e. The latter is less compatible, but pieces of it could still be used, like the four degrees of success in action resolution. Critical Success is 10 over the DC. It’s the best plausible result possible. Basic Success is over the DC, but not 10 over. Basic Failure is under the DC, but not 10 under. Critical failure is 10 under the DC. The attempt fails, and usually adds a complication. Rolling a natural 20 moves the result up a step. Rolling a natural 1 moves the result down a step. I was thinking of applying that to melee and ranged combat. Instead of AC being static, it becomes an Armor Save. Opponents don’t roll, they have a static attack number equal to their attack bonus +11. Players roll all dice, and in the case of an armor save, they subtract 10 from their AC and replace that with a d20 roll. On an Armor Save: Critical success = no damage. Success = half damage. Failure = full damage. Critical failure = double damage. This does mean that damage will happen a lot more frequently, but it applies to both sides, even though players are making to-hit rolls against an opponent’s static AC. It’s important to remember that Hit Points are not wound points. Every hit before someone drops to 0 is just wearing them down, inflicting stress, fatigue, pain, etc. it softens them up, but mortal wounds are what happens when their stamina and luck run out. Remembering that most HP are relatively superficial make sense of the mechanic which lets PCs recover by rolling Hit Dice.

[@zelbarnap]

Lightning 5E! YES! Less is more ;)

[@garion046]

I was hoping for a bit more from the initial Black Flag playtest, but some good ideas. Some ideas need some work though, and I feel martial got pretty boned compared to casters thus far. I am concerned it will be very unbalanced though as, if this document is anything to go by, some options are going to be drastically stronger than others. Depends on how your group is whether that's an issue; for some they don't care and for others they'll be annoyed by that. There's also some concern about how well they word things, but that's common in playtest docs so hopefully that can be fixed.

[@mpinzon]

Hi Mike. Have you seen Treantmonk’s review of the Black Flag play test??

[@Silkspar]

I did, it was a fantastic example of how NOT to give feed back, or a perfect example of destructive criticism. It was also myopic, condescending, arrogant and rude. For instance, it is full of assumptions based on 5e when this not 5e and the package literally says PCs will be more powerful in comparison. He has some good points on clarity of the wording but nearly 10 minutes of complaining about typos is pointless. He continuously insults the designers and basically acts like a reddit asshat. It's 40 mins of toxicity for 5 mins of "needs some proofreading"

[@donotinteract7851]

@@Silksparnah his critique was great, the playtest was trash and clearly rushed out to capitalise on everyone’s anger towards Wotc

[@Silkspar]

@@donotinteract7851 I stand by what I said. I disagree you with your assessment as the evidence to support your assertions is circumstantial and reactionary.

[@geoffdewitt6845]

​@@SilksparHey man, I agree that Treantmonk's review was not helpful. However, the schmuck you're arguing with is literally named "Do Not Interact." Probably not acting in good faith. :)

[@NikkiAnnMarie]

​@@Silkspar I think you misunderstood the point of his video - he wasn't making it as feedback for Kobold Press. He was sharing his honest impression of the playtest with his audience, which in this case happened to be a resounding disappointment. It certainly comes across as if he published the video with the assumption that the developers would not watch it, and went into detail to discuss how he is struggling to give feedback based on the lack of content, implying that to him, the video itself is not feedback. I admit that it is a poor assumption to think the designers would not see his video given how his channel has grown, but it is likely based on his relationship with D&D where feedback is mostly addressed through official channels and content creators are (largely) ignored. However, viewing it through that lens, it cannot see it as toxic - scathingly critical, sure, but that is his honest unfiltered opinion, not the feedback he is going to relay to the publishers. I always appreciate Mike's optimism, and his macro view for potential, but at the same time given the complexity of these games I think Chris's more specific perspective is just as valid and he raises a significant number of genuine design concerns, far more than just 'needs proofreading'. As the first look at a game system alternative I think everyone was expecting something more - what they actually presented was very thin on real content, and most of what they have added is a bit of a mess.

Why pick any of the suggested standard arrays when the point buy system not only enables both, but also allows you to get e.g. a 9 instead of an 8? Point buy 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8 = 31p Point buy 16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8 = also 31p However, the point buy system gives you 32p.

[@TonyRobetson]

forge of foes sounds like a great idea for a book. ill have to get it for my dms that like to make monsters as far as black flag, i went in with an open mind. my problem with it is that these are veterans in the industry and this is what they put out? it clearly needed better proofreading. it's called a playtest but most of it was ripped from dnd 5e. if theyre goal is to fix the problems that base 5e has, than show some fixes that dont feel like worse choices than current dnd products like tasha's offers. feels like people keep brushing off the criticisms as having unrealistic expectations. didnt kobold press write the first hardcover adv for 5e? shouldnt expectations be high for a company with that much experience? thanks for covering A5e, i have been pretty curious about that. might have to get it just to see how they do exploration

[@Konradius001]

(I use Pf v2, but this really works the same for both systems) The way I handle odd scores is by allowing one odd score to be rounded up. That means that that first 19 actually gets a +5. Or having a +1 stat boost (yes, I actually give items like that as treasure) actually does mean something. Having more odd scores means the player needs to make the choice which stat to use the round up on.

[@kurtoogle4576]

The writing errors and problems with several of the Talents in the Black Flag play test put me off. One D&D may be out by the time Black Flag reaches its final form. But hey, I hope it is great!

[@StabbySideways]

The suggestion that all of these disparate publishers should come together and agree on a common system to support is, um... "optimistic," let's say. Plus, it seems to presuppose a world that hasn't given rise to thousands and thousands of RPGs over the past 50 years. I guess for people who came into RPGs with 5E, the prospect of there not being one super-popular game sucking up all the oxygen in the room could seem weird, but when you look at the whole history of RPGs, the very existence of an RPG with that kind of status is, itself, very weird. 5E is the anomaly, not the rule. And the last time D&D was this popular, third-party publishers producing material for it to the exclusion of almost anything else was the problem, not a solution. Even then, the D20 Glut gave us Mutants & Masterminds, Spycraft/Fantasycraft, and others that took 3.X as their starting point and went off in their own directions. Anyway, the very idea of getting together a bunch of publishers (who would do that, exactly?) and getting them to agree to hitch their wagons to someone else's game instead of doing whatever they think is best for their own businesses is kinda, well... "optimistic."

[@agilemonk6305]

Mike. Your shows are always great. BTW toward the very latter half of the snow, sound seemed to go out for a bit. Maybe just be, but as one of your Patreon subscribers, I thought I should let you know. ❤

[@Zr0din]

After reading some things on BlackFlag, I believe we need to take a step back... I believe someone should put out an SRD safe version of the Players Hand Book with MINIMUM POSSIBLE CHANGES (meaning fix Monk and Ranger) for legal safety (rebrand Eldritch Knight as Arcane Warrior). Particularly since there is so much in PHB that is NOT in the SRD. Then we fix from there. Fix Stealth, Fix economics and Magic Item price/rarity, Fix a whole lot of stuff. But let's get the FOUNDATION filled out with stuff you already know. ADOPTION TO THE NEW SYSTEM WILL BE SO MUCH FASTER!!! So how do I sell that book? Frankly, you don't have to. You have solidified 5e into eternity. No more threats!

[@euansmith3699]

I guess that, in the Grim Hollow Viking setting, the PCs could go raiding to rescue prisoners from the more "historically accurate" clans.

[@1979fsa]

Good. It could be a faction of former slav...prisioners and they do rescue raids. Not historically accurate but a great subvertion of the viking idea.

[@GreenThingonTV]

The solution to D&DBeyond's monopoly is three simple letters: API. The DDB team need to create an Application Programming interface (API ) so that third party platforms can create tools that will enable their customers to access data purchased on DDB. This will eliminate the need for direct licensing and give DMs the choice of multiple platforms. Also, any changes made to the data (e.g. errata), will apply only once.

[@iododendron3416]

But wouldn't that mean that DnDBeyond would be the only place to purchase digital DnD products? That kind of defeats the purpose of breaking the monopoly.

[@GreenThingonTV]

One possibility is to use the API to create a marketplace on a platform which would get retail percentage on the sale. Also, if Wizards bundles the physical book with the digital, the only way to redeem the digital is through DDB. This would enable the purchaser to use that data elsewhere.

[@fuzzlemacfuzz]

​@@GreenThingonTVand then Wizards buys that marketplace

[@SuperSorcerer]

ב"ה About Forge of Foes, the Dungeon Master's Guide in pages 273-283 give pretty good guidelines that are very usefull for me. How much extra will we see in your guide that it will be enough more usefull to spend money on it if I already have the Dungeon Master's Guide?

[@SlyFlourish]

Check out the preview when it comes out next week!

[@keithcurtis]

I think that my major disappointment in the Black Flag playtest is that it was A) poorly edited, and B) bereft of any compelling/new ideas. I don't see a need for it if it's not going to differentiate itself. Lineage/heritage (the only element anyone mentions in a review) is not new. Fantasy Hero was doing this over 20 years ago, and I'm sure it wasn't new with them, either. I do wish them success, I use their monster books. But it needs to be far more innovative if there will be any reason to switch. The first offering should have had at least one standout, really cool idea. This didn't.

[@tomcabanski450]

They changed the terminology so they can own it. I guarantee that this will not be released under Creative Commons.

[@bertman4]

Come on Mike, you've made intros for Morrus' podcast. You know it's E.N.(ee-en) World Publishing.

[@snieves4]

Easiest way i found to give monsters certain abilities is adding a class or feats.

[@geoffdewitt6845]

I think the language is changing as a branding exercise to set themselves apart from D&D. EDIT: Whoops, should've watched the whole video before posting.

[@WalkOnNick]

I think so far the design quality of the Black Flag playtest is pretty weak and can't in any way compare to the One D&D playtest quality. Lot's of copy pasta and obvious shifting around of SRD content. Very little isnpired creativity. The concept of lineages and heritages is neat but I think Pathfinder 2e also does this but the examples given are disappointing. Also lots of bad takes in the talents. If this is anything to go by, I'll have to go to One D&D.

[@nicka3697]

Interesting. Obviously the oned&d playtest is further along but I preferred the blackflag approach to races and backgrounds. The talents especially the caster ones were a definite improvement not just more powerful but also better designed especially war caster. Its not all good I thought cosmopolitan was bland and could be better split into different heritages for socialites, city streets and academic but that's what the feedback is for. I was hoping black flag would be bolder but it seems they really mean it when they say it will be backwards compatible and when you have 4 monster books and 2 spell books in addition to all the adventures I can understand why kobold press want that. I don't think wotc really care if oned&d is backwards compatible they don't want to sell you xanathars they want you to buy into what's coming with their vtt etc. That's fine that's their choice but when they say oned&d is backwards compatible they mean keep buying this years book and we won't go too far away because 5e is a popular game they don't really seem to mean that the old subclasses will work in any real way with their new classes or that the Monster manual won't need to be replaced entirely with their new one.

[@Deviknyte_]

What's c7020?

[@Blairrows]

Cubicle 7 is working on their own game, C7d20. We don't know much about it yet except that it's slated to be compatible with 5e products.

[@Deviknyte_]

@@Blairrows oh 7d not 70!

[@ronwisegamgee]

We may be getting all of these different approaches to 5e, but how much does that all cost? It's not like we can use them all simultaneously and there's only so much bloat that actually matters. All we're getting is more "5e restaurants" and no one is teaching folks how to cook their own 5e cuisine, because that wouldn't be profitable. I find this truly sad.

[@artpaul8909]

so it is nice to see that the monsters in D and D are getting a bit of attention in this way. As a vetran player i have found that monster design and thier cr ratings are a disaster AC and damage scales poorly vs cr. Some monsters have no buisness being at the crs they are placed in. I doubt there was anykind of real playtesting for most . In addition the power creep of character classes completely outclasses most monsters. Then there is no chance of challenging characters above level 10. If D and D was going to so poorly design their characters for adventures above level 10 why even have the ability to advance past that point.

[@bryan__m]

"We want 5.5E, not One D&D" is cringey and has "how do you do, fellow kids" vibes.