Something Awful leak.

[Scribble]

I care because the base rules color the options added on. 4E was built on a chassis that was designed to have infinite amounts of powers, feats, ect. added onto it, and wore the added weight well. Then we get to community arguments about which way to play 5E is 'right'. The core philosophy of the game matters.

I'm just going to disagree with you there. If I can bolt on these "modules" and end up with the game I want to play, I'm not going to argue against there being another way for people to play the game.

I think above all else that's the biggest failure 3e and 4e "created."

They kind of ushered in a "this is how the game is played, everything else isn't TRUE D&D" attitude it seems.

I REALLY hope personally that 5e is modular enough that it can bring back what I loved about AD&D... That there were countless different ways to play the game... The only problem was how chaotic it all was... If they can create that same feeling (the game is yours) without the chaos... I will be happy, and who the frack cares about the core.

 

[gyor]

These sound like really early stuff. I'm betting they have a bunch of experimental packets like this. If you read the blog posts, lls, and 3rules you can already see how much things have changed.

 

[Reflex]

Yup , and everyone keep in mind that this is playtest 1.0 ( assuming this is real) . I am sure early versions of (insert game here) didn't look all that good either.
.

Back when Eric Noah was still running what eventually became ENWorld, I personally was very interested in every new tidbit that emerged about ur-3.0. So were the rest of my group. In fact, we managed to cobble enough of the proto-rules together to play a campaign well before release and we loved it.

I'm convinced this represents a pretty accurate picture of what the 1.0 version of the rules looked like. I wish I'd seen what was so "hi-lariously" awful about the magic items section, but now that coeranys is under NDA, I guess we may never know (assuming they change in the next revision). Either way, the difference in my personal anticipation based on these leaks compared to those from 3.0 couldn't be more different. This looks pretty awful and presages some very bewildering changes in direction all around. The one positive is the auto-success streamlining for certain tasks- that aids narrative flow and eliminates pointless rolling when it doesn't really add any play value to the game.

Of course, we already did that in our games anyways at this point...

 

[Piratecat]

Still, going into the open playtest with an already negative attitude due to previous events(this leak) can lead to a more negative reading of that playtest than would otherwise occur. I don't think WotC wants people biased against the game before they even see it in a relatively finished form.

That's totally your decision. Still, I think you'd be best off evaluating a game from a place of neutrality - "is this game fun for us?" - based on the actual game itself. Judging anything from rumor, either good or bad, is not necessarily a great idea.

We're playtesting D&D Next, so I know what the rules are (and what other folks make up, or don't), and we're having a fantastic time with what we have so far. So perhaps I'm biased. But we judge and evaluate with each iteration of rules, working to be critical. When something gets screwed up it gets flagged and then hopefully tuned/changed/eliminated by designers. That's what a playtest is for. I'll be shocked if the final rules look much like what we currently have.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

You don't need to insult Monte to have a problem with him. I tend to associate Monte with:

1. Favoritism towards spellcasters
2. Building system mastery into the game
3. Prioritizing mathematical symmetry over balanced, smooth running gameplay

In his blog posts and preview comments, I've seen strong signs of all three of those, and at this point don't trust Monte with D&D at all.

Exactly, I think Monte Cook is one of the nicest people I've ever talked to on the internet, but I disagree vehemently with a lot of his game design.

 

[mcintma]

Exactly, I think Monte Cook is one of the nicest people I've ever talked to on the internet, but I disagree vehemently with a lot of his game design.

That's how I feel about Mike Mearls

Monte helped usher in the 2nd golden age of D&D, for that ...he has my axe

 

[Scribble]

That's how I feel about Mike Mearls

Monte helped usher in the 2nd golden age of D&D, for that ...he has my axe

I always felt his stuff got too much rolemaster in it... But I've always been a fan of his "flavor" ideas.

 

[SensoryThought]

I tend to associate Monte with:

1. Favoritism towards spellcasters
2. Building system mastery into the game
3. Prioritizing mathematical symmetry over balanced, smooth running gameplay.

I have and tried to be optimistic about 5e but many of the actual interviews and discussions with Mr Cook reinforce the above post.

The spellcaster favoritism I find the greatest concern as the linear fighters quadratic wizards has been a problem with editions prior to 4e. Making wizards fun to play with lots of options and fighters return to basic attacks only was always a design choice I though might be considered, and one I hope they don't end up with.

While I appreciate there will be a need to divorce 5e from a lot of 4e language, I hope the action economy is kept in some form. While I found it cumbersome and confusing for new players, 3-6 months into our 4e campaign all the players hit their stride. Once they knew what could be done in a turn (and became familiar with their powers) combat rounds actually run surprisingly fast. And there are no arguments about players trying to attack and squeeze 8 minor actions into a turn.

The actual SA post may be fake but it does crystallize for me a few 4e innovations (better class balance, action economy) that I hope translate to 5e.

 

[catastrophic]

1) This is based upon Playtest v 1.0

In other words, the foundation upon which the game is being built, and a clear doccument of their key prorities and intent.

2) It is the basic game and doesn't include any modular options, which means...
3) 4E-esque elements were probably not included
To put it another way, it is a lot easier to add "4E style" onto a 3Eish base game than it would be to take out 4E-esque elements to make a "3E style" game.
Make sense? Good, now we can all relax.

That's not true at all, in fact I'd say the opposite is true.

Key to 4e's success as a design is it's basic core system. The lucid, clean, and balanced set of unified mechanics such as the action economy, categories of power usage (as opposed ot powers themselves), and so on.

All of 4e is built on this foundation. It's why they could do things like Essentials and the Psionic classes, even if YMMV on their success, that it's possible at all is because of 4e's Foundation, not what's added onto it.

Gamma World is another clear example of this.

You can't kludge those things on after the fact, somehow building over the far more 3e-like system on display in 1.0. 4e relies on that basic, core system to function.

It's very convenient to say 'It's ok just wait for the patch and they'll fix everything', but if you don't have the core, basic functionality in place for a 4e like system, there's no way to add one. Not really.

It's already clear that the history of 5e development will be defined by two things, at least for fans of 4e. Bad news, and Denial.

 

[Piratecat]

I didn't think this was necessary to state, but I was apparently wrong. No edition warring. Please discuss the topic, don't segue into old D&D vs 4e vs 5e arguments.

Thanks.