Something Awful leak.

[Mallus]

Or is overreaction a D&D fan class feature?

Yes.

How else can you explain - "I just read this possibly true leak of the pre-alpha version 1.0 playtest rules for the new D&D on a humor board known for organized trolling raids. Man, the new D&D is gonna suck - do not want!"

That said, aside from the obvious jokes (random classes in the PHB, unlocking for Wizard Points), the post sounds plausible, in a non-objectionable, I'm still interested way.

 

[Mokona]

I may or may not like the current state of the Wizards of the Coast playtest rules for 5e but the biggest benefit of releasing the Official Playtest now (sooner than later) is stamping out internet trolls.

Fear of the unknown is worse by far than any set of bad rules, no matter how bad. Rampant speculation leads to lying trolls leads to hate leads to suffering (oh, hi there Yoda).

Maybe the leak is lies and maybe it's true. If it's true there really was very little substance to say it is like-4e or HATES-on-4e. The author's bias also makes it difficult to understand what the rules are really saying, as a whole. I only know what the author is saying, I don't get a clear picture of the non-bias-flavored text he's working from.

It's funny that WotC thinks they can "control the message" by controlling the release date of the playtest. Multiple trolls, multiple leaks (some false), and even D&D Experience playtest reports show that you cannot control the message while hiding the playtest from the public. Only by releasing the playtest now (and evolving it with updates to be tested and kept/rejected) can Wizards take back control of the message and keep control.

To me it feels like Wizards keeps trying to shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[vagabundo]

If this is true I hope they pair down all the horrible fiddliness. I was hoping for a core game something like Basic DND, something that could be built on.

Some of the horrible bits:
- Spell levels different from class levels
- fighters getting nerfed
- way too general wizard spell make a comeback
- Spell lists in NPC stats (this x1000, sooo bad)
- Big focus on magic items again.

Monte is known to have a bias towards wizards so I can well believe they have been bumped up in power...

 

[tlantl]

Reading this thread is like looking into my crystal ball. I foresee many more like it when the real play test starts. Many, many more.

Every little thing that doesn't quite mesh with people's wants or expectations will fill thread after thread with vituperations on dozens of web sites.

It doesn't bode well.

I find it humorous and in some cases predictable. I'm sure there are going to be things I don't like about the game. I'm not going to be disappointed unless there is so much wrong with it that I can't stomach the thing. I don't expect that to happen, but I also don't expect it to resemble any or the editions that came before.

I have hopes and fears. Until then I will wait and see. When I can sit with my friends playing a well polished version of their play test and can judge for myself I will basically treat these leaks as entertainment nothing more.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The leaker, that sounds like a really horrible name for a monster, or even worse a superhero.

LOL!!! Sounds like a character from The Tick universe.

 

[Blackwarder]

Isn't it the same thing that been floating around several months ago only written as one long document... :/

I'll take every thing in there with a truckload of salt, we will see the rules our selves in a few months, no need to get over excited over this.

Warder

 

[Arytiss]

I'm curious as to why those who are thinking "OMG THIS IS TERRIBLE!" have that opinion. Treat this as if it were a playtest. Instead of simply saying the whole thing is bad, say what you don't like and why. At the very least it'll mean a little more feedback for any WotC people who happen to browse this thread. Simply saying something is bad isn't very helpful.


Looking at the leaked information, I suspect that it's most likely true, but again, it's a very early alpha and probably compares very little to the current iteration. Most of it I found interesting enough, such as the use of abilities for saves and skills, though some I'm cautious of - in particular the mention of the need for magic items. I'm one of those people of the opinion that a magic item should be special and that adventurers shouldn't have to go around decked out like a christmas tree in order to fight the monsters.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Except reading through all the stuff up to there, it all looks like an unholy love child of 4E and 1E/OD&D/etc...

Yeah, that's my impression as well (or more precisely, Essentials and AD&D).

But 4e tempered with OSR sensibilities would probably resemble 3e in a lot of ways, only hopefully simpler (and with tighter math).

I mean, so what if they don't call Encounter powers "Encounter powers"? Yeah, I liked a lot of the standardized language of 4e (makes is so much easier to learn and communicate), but a power that refreshes after a short rest is an encounter power, no matter what you call it.

 

[dkyle]

I'm generally inclined to believe that this is a reasonably accurate description of the 1.0 rules. And they look terrible. Not that I expected much different. Sounds like these are from before they started talking publicly about 5E, so hopefully there's been some feedback they're paying attention to.

A lot of it is a return to stuff from older editions that I was glad to see go away, but there's one new mechanic that I'm not thrilled by: the ability check system. So, if your ability score matches or exceeds the DC, you succeed automatically. But if it doesn't, you roll d20+ability mod vs that DC. Which means that with, say, an ability score of 16, you automatically succeed all they way up to DC 16, but at DC 17, success chance drops all the way down to 40%. But then DC 18 and up, it just drops 5% each time. That sounds incredibly wonky.

Also, at 20 ability score, the success rate for DC 21 is 25%. But, apparently, past 20 ability mod increases at one for one (I suspect that "20 cap" is just a starting stat cap). Which means that for every ability score past 20, the success rate for the DC one higher is always 25%, while the success rate for the equal DC (or less) is 100%. At least it doesn't devolve to the point of rolling never meaning anything, period (which would happen at ability score 31, if ability mods continued at 2 to 1 past 20), but it still feel incredibly bizarre to have such a stark drop-off from one single point of DC.

One thing I am glad to see: no automatic level scaling of spells. That's a significant part of "quadratic wizards". Not all of it, though, and overall caster balance still seems to be awful.

I'm curious as to why those who are thinking "OMG THIS IS TERRIBLE!" have that opinion. Treat this as if it were a playtest. Instead of simply saying the whole thing is bad, say what you don't like and why. At the very least it'll mean a little more feedback for any WotC people who happen to browse this thread. Simply saying something is bad isn't very helpful.

Aside from a few things (some which I mentioned above), the bulk of it is just stuff brought back from older editions. Going into why I dislike all those various things they're bringing back would just be rehashing the same old "why I like 4E" arguments. There's basically nothing I saw that made me think "oh, that's an improvement over 4E".

 

[billd91]

I may or may not like the current state of the Wizards of the Coast playtest rules for 5e but the biggest benefit of releasing the Official Playtest now (sooner than later) is stamping out internet trolls.

Fear of the unknown is worse by far than any set of bad rules, no matter how bad. Rampant speculation leads to lying trolls leads to hate leads to suffering (oh, hi there Yoda).

Maybe the leak is lies and maybe it's true. If it's true there really was very little substance to say it is like-4e or HATES-on-4e. The author's bias also makes it difficult to understand what the rules are really saying, as a whole. I only know what the author is saying, I don't get a clear picture of the non-bias-flavored text he's working from.

It's funny that WotC thinks they can "control the message" by controlling the release date of the playtest. Multiple trolls, multiple leaks (some false), and even D&D Experience playtest reports show that you cannot control the message while hiding the playtest from the public. Only by releasing the playtest now (and evolving it with updates to be tested and kept/rejected) can Wizards take back control of the message and keep control.

To me it feels like Wizards keeps trying to shoot themselves in the foot.

I do not believe Wizards is shooting itself in the foot at all right now. They need to work at their pace and IGNORE the trolls rather than react to them with haste and lack of care. Because that's all we'd get if they thought they had to react to trolling threads like the leak on a site better described as Someplace Awful. Hasty releases of half-baked stuff really will be shooting themselves in the foot.

If the rampant speculation leads to the dark side, that's a reflection on the foolishness of the rampant speculation and speculators. People need to be patient. People need to be reasonably open-minded. People need to stop running around like they're on fire every time speculation suggests the next edition will include something they don't like or exclude something they love. There will be plenty of time to criticize elements of the game when we actually have it in our hands and are working from something other than hearsay.

I've been a vocal critic of the direction WotC took with 4e. But I waited until I had real information in my hands. I actually checked out the game before I decided it was too different from the D&D I wanted. I'm doing the same with 5e, waiting to have elements of it before I comment on what is or isn't there, rather than what I'd really like to be in or not in there.