Broken NDAs or Elaborate Trolls?

Morrus · Feb 16, 2012

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.

The first appeared on the Giant in the Playground forums.

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.

Estlor · Feb 16, 2012

D&D Next Leaks from DDXP

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.

/tg/ - Traditional Games » Thread #17721994

The posts with the information are by the poster named NDAnon.

Mercurius · Feb 16, 2012

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.

NDAnon said:
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.

Mercule · Feb 16, 2012

Mercurius said:
Not sure I like this - it sounds very awkward and another thing to have to keep track of.

This. Of course, that's also my feeling about the opposed spell checks.

Bobbum Man · Feb 16, 2012

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.

Gardukk · Feb 16, 2012

Bobbum Man said:
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.

Herremann the Wise · Feb 16, 2012

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

Ranganathan · Feb 16, 2012

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."

Jeff Carlsen · Feb 16, 2012

My only objection is the idea that rests are finite. I mean, it's literally modeled after a work day, isn't it? Two ten minute breaks and a lunch.

But I do like the idea that an hour rest lets you recover some hit points or prepare more spells.

Basically, I like what they're getting at, but the implementation needs work.

Everything else seemed to be at a usable, if not refined point of development. Not surprising, and clearly subject to change.

trancejeremy · Feb 16, 2012

Doesn't this pretty much sound like the other supposedly debunked reports?

Warlords, Wizards with at will powers, having to roll for spell casting...

Consider, too, this came from the more recent playtest than the other report.

Electrum? Really? Why not silver? That would make more sense if they just have to change the money system.