Dear Unregistered! We notice you don't currently have a silver subscription here on EN World. We'd love to encourage you to give it a try, so we've made this coupon for $5 off your first 4-month Silver Subscription. Simply go to the subscription page and enter coupon code SILVER. With that subscription you get access to TWO adventure paths, which between them cover D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, and D&D 4th Edition - War of the Burning Sky (which has been completed) and ZEITGEIST: The Gears of Revolution (which is currently ongoing). You also get a whole bunch of site perks and features here on EN World, including access to the Search function, images and links in your forum signature, a larger PM box, give out more XP at a time, and more. Please give a try; we're proud of our adventure paths, and we're sure you'll love them both!
All the latest EN World
official reviews, columns, and subscriber articles here.
Don't have your subscription yet? It's only $3 a month and you can grab
it right
here!
As you probably know, there are a number of people out there who have playtested early development versions of D&D Next under non-disclosure-agreements (NDAs). These include attendees of DDXP last month, those who played the game at WotC HQ last year prior to the official announcements, and those on the "Friends & Family" playtest program currently going on. So far there has been very little leakage about these experiences, but in the last couple of days at least two individual people claim to be spilling the beans in defiance of the NDAs they signed.
Now, we're not saying these are real. We honestly don't know. We're certainly not treating the info a "confirmed" (and so it's not making it on to our D&D 5E Info page). We can't strongly emphasize enough that you should take these with a hefty grain of salt. But it's worth talking about, nonetheless.
This one was officially debunked by WotC's community manager, Trevor Kidd:
Looking over your post, this doesn't sound like our playtest or playtest material, so I'm not exactly sure what you're referencing. If you would like to talk to me about the playtest material, you can PM me on this site or the Wizards site.
For everyone reading and commenting though, I do want to stop the misinformation right now - this doesn't look at all like our playtest process or material.
Trevor Kidd Community Manager Wizards of the Coast
The second appears to be a little older, and can be found here (the posts with the information are by the poster named NDAnon and thanks to Estlor for pointing them out). Please note that there is some profanity at that link, so it may not be work or child-friendly. The poster in question says "Ask a 5e playtester who doesn't give half a **** about NDAs anything." It's a long, archived thread, so the info is very much spread out in tiny chunks.
So, there you have it. Make of it what you will; I'm certainly not calling either as legit, and Trevor Kidd has stated that the first is definitely not.
Last edited by Morrus; 16th February 2012 at 08:15 PM..
I've been sitting on this a little bit because I wasn't sure what EN World's policy on places that violate the NDA was, but seeing as the (eventually proven to be) false leak thread over on GiantITP's forum wasn't shut down right away, I'll share.
I found an archived thread from 4chan's /tg/ where someone who played at DDXP reveals info on the build tested at the event. I cannot verify the authenticity of the information in the thread - I was not at DDXP and did not participate in the playtest - so please, grain of salt.
Looks legit, thanks. It also sounds like the opposed rolls is there. I'm mixed on this; on one hand, it doubles the number of rolls, on the other it adds a dynamic quality. I'm thinking it should be option and depend upon the group - either they choose "static defenses" - and it is 10 + modifier or they choose "dynamic defenses" and it is d20 + modifier. For most combats a group might want to use static defenses, whereas for major combats - or against singular, big bad guys - dynamic defenses would be good. Just a thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDAnon
Ohh, resting. You get 4 rests per day; 2 short 10-minute ones, a 1-hour one, and an 8-hour one. 10-minutes give you back your level in HP, the 1-hour lets you get back 1/2 your hp OR re-prep some spells (one or the other, caster-bitches!), while an 8-hour gives you back both 1/2 HP and all your spells. There were no healing surges in sight.
Not sure I like this - it sounds very awkward and another thing to have to keep track of.
NDAnon Mentioned that spell descriptions were 3.x style...boo hiss.
I would rather see spell descriptions of a more truncated nature, ala' Holmes Basic or Microlite 20, than having my spell list read like a novella. Let DM's sort out the vagaries.
NDAnon Mentioned that spell descriptions were 3.x style...boo hiss.
I would rather see spell descriptions of a more truncated nature, ala' Holmes Basic or Microlite 20, than having my spell list read like a novella. Let DM's sort out the vagaries.
My biggest beef with the 3.x spell format is that they have this nice, easy-to-read stat block above the text that details of the spell's important information except what the spell actually does.
If they have a spell block that has the quick information that you use 90% of the time, followed by the nitty-gritty details of the spell that you use 10% of the time, that would be great.
It seems Electrum is back! And Gold is the new Platinum.
The three types of rest and healing/death mechanics seem interesting (but I still have issues in mixing wounds and hps).
Based on this if it's true, 5e is looking pretty solid.
Interesting thread!
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Imagination is a quality given a man to compensate him for what he is not,
and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is. Oscar Wilde
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
It's a really long thread. I'm going to read bits and post relevant data, leaving the "fff" and "damn" comments alone. I'm going to miss stuff, so feel free to add info...
Info Bits:
"You get 4 rests per day; 2 short 10-minute ones, a 1-hour one, and an 8-hour one. 10-minutes give you back your level in HP, the 1-hour lets you get back 1/2 your hp OR re-prep some spells (one or the other, caster-bitches!), while an 8-hour gives you back both 1/2 HP and all your spells. There were no healing surges in sight."
"Oh, while I'm thinking about it... HP is set by your Con SCORE, but it was also heavily implied every class had an actual hit die for future levels. Criticals were 4e/3e hybrids; roll a 20, do max damage AND roll to confirm. On a success, extra damage equal to your class' HD; rogue 1d6, fighter 1d10, etc."
Warlords, Wizards with at will powers, having to roll for spell casting...
On these points, there was confirmation in the seminars. Monte described the mechanic of rolling to hit when casting which set the DC to save. And swapping feats for at-will powers (in the case of the magic-user at least) was mentioned a few times.
My biggest beef with the 3.x spell format is that they have this nice, easy-to-read stat block above the text that details of the spell's important information except what the spell actually does.
If they have a spell block that has the quick information that you use 90% of the time, followed by the nitty-gritty details of the spell that you use 10% of the time, that would be great.
Looks legit, thanks. It also sounds like the opposed rolls is there. I'm mixed on this; on one hand, it doubles the number of rolls, on the other it adds a dynamic quality. I'm thinking it should be option and depend upon the group - either they choose "static defenses" - and it is 10 + modifier or they choose "dynamic defenses" and it is d20 + modifier. For most combats a group might want to use static defenses, whereas for major combats - or against singular, big bad guys - dynamic defenses would be good. Just a thought.
Not sure I like this - it sounds very awkward and another thing to have to keep track of.
Back in the day, several 1E AD&D games I played in used such a houseruled mechanic.
At low levels, it was essentially an attacker rolling a d20 vs the opponent rolling a d20 and adding (10-AC). (Such as a fighter swinging a sword at a badguy). Essentially it was a like a "defense" or "parrying" type roll.
I've never understood "electrum pieces". I may be wrong, but I don't think any real culture used electrum for coinage after 300 BC or so; it's a naturally-occurring alloy whose purity can't be controlled. But moving to the silver standard (and eliminating platinum pieces?) is so huge that I can forgive them for it.
I'm very disappointed to learn that ability modifiers still exist; I'd gotten my hopes up.
On the other hand, some of the other things in this thread are kind of encouraging. I'll wait and see.
__________________ "All right, I am not the Shadow. You have nothing at all to worry about. Except, oh, wait, I'm pointing a gun at you."
Ohh, resting. You get 4 rests per day; 2 short 10-minute ones, a 1-hour one, and an 8-hour one. 10-minutes give you back your level in HP, the 1-hour lets you get back 1/2 your hp OR re-prep some spells (one or the other, caster-bitches!), while an 8-hour gives you back both 1/2 HP and all your spells. There were no healing surges in sight.
definitely waaaaaay over-complicated... and if i'm level 1, why in the world would i take a 10 minute rest to regain 1 measely hitpoint... that sounds incredibly pointless.
how about there's one type of short rest you get 3/day - regain 1/4 your HP or get 1 spell back
__________________ <p style:=shameless self promotion>
.
. Best Story Hour Ever.
.
.
</p style:=shameless self promotion>
Broken NDAs or Elaborate Trolls?
Recent News
ApathyGames.com 
Linear Mode
