Something Awful leak.

Status
Not open for further replies.
On the point about WOTC's lack of commentary:

The leak was posted on the 15th. It's entirely possible that no one at WOTC even heard about yet. Good grief, it's been a day. And a Friday at that. I've heard a rumour that those guys at WOTC actually work once in a while, and not spend the day poncing around Internet forums putting out fires.

As far as the veracity of this particular leak, I have no idea. I highly doubt it to be honest. Sure, they want to unify the different play groups. Fine and dandy. But, 4e is still the largest block by a whole bunch (at least at En World - every poll taken puts 4e at about 2:1 over other editions) so, it's pretty unlikely that they're going to go too far to ignore that.

Although, I have to admit, this looks EXACTLY the same as it did back in 2006-7 with the 4e announcements.

Hey guys, what shape do you see in those clouds over there?


4e is the largest block by a whole bunch? How do you figure that? So the players of all other editions (including PF) are dwarfed by this massive 4e group? I seriously doubt that. Yes, 4e reigns supreme at enworld...and that's the only place it reigns other than the WotC forum. Taking a 4e forum as the defacto D&D sample size is just flat in error and wrong. Many folks that play other editions go elsewhere, so you have a nice self-fulfilling prophesy. Enjoy.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Dear God, 13 pages of debate over an early April Fool's prank. I promised someone I wouldn't troll people here anymore but man, you guys make it SO easy it's hard to resist.

It's only natural. People are starved for new tidbits of 5e. It's been two months since we were given any meaningful information about the game.
 

4e is the largest block by a whole bunch? How do you figure that? So the players of all other editions (including PF) are dwarfed by this massive 4e group? I seriously doubt that. Yes, 4e reigns supreme at enworld...and that's the only place it reigns other than the WotC forum. Taking a 4e forum as the defacto D&D sample size is just flat in error and wrong. Many folks that play other editions go elsewhere, so you have a nice self-fulfilling prophesy. Enjoy.

Its the biggest block of D&D people at rpg.net, and its the biggest block at WotC's forums. That adds up to 4E people being the biggest piece of three out of the four largest online D&D discussion communities. Is 4E a majority, I'm not sure. Its bigger than any other single faction, I believe.
 


On the point about WOTC's lack of commentary:

The leak was posted on the 15th. It's entirely possible that no one at WOTC even heard about yet. Good grief, it's been a day. And a Friday at that. I've heard a rumour that those guys at WOTC actually work once in a while, and not spend the day poncing around Internet forums putting out fires.

Sure, but [MENTION=2]Piratecat[/MENTION] obviously saw it, since he commented several times in this thread, and he's one of the folks who called out the last "leak" as a fake. And when the last one hit this forum, Trevor Kidd from WotC chimed in quickly over here. I'd be very surprised if WotC isn't aware of this leak.

Given that no one in the friends and family playtest has jumped in to debunk this leak as they did last time, it's probably real, though based on very preliminary play test stuff that will probably have huge differences with what comes out in the open playtest and even larger differences with what's eventually released in the finished product. And as I said before, I'm not even looking at the content of it! I'm just curious about whether it's real or not.
 

Its the biggest block of D&D people at rpg.net, and its the biggest block at WotC's forums. That adds up to 4E people being the biggest piece of three out of the four largest online D&D discussion communities. Is 4E a majority, I'm not sure. Its bigger than any other single faction, I believe.

Of course we are both entitled to our opinions.

I believe that if you were correct, 4e wouldn't be a dead system walking.
 

I"m not a playtester, so here's my feedback on what was compiled so far. (Thanks GX.Sigma)

1. Skills aren't mandatory IIRC, right?

2. Wizards aren't proficient in javelins normally (much less flaming). Just go ahead and give them "every wizard gets their own custom Magic Missile." I've used ice knives.

3. Mage Armor as default makes me think Wizards are supposed to be in melee.

4. Give the Fighter EVERY Fighting Style listed. Missile, sword & board, two handed, shield wall, whatever. All of that stuff is the complexity and awesomeness of an elite trained warrior. Let 'em play with it rather than "Every one is specialized" and sucks at everything else. Specialization should be custom by the player. "I call this Stabbing Fist School"

(Thanks for the spells where we get duration, some oomph in power, and "oh no!" temporary control loss again.)

5. Variable donning armor time? I guess I can see this for the plate mailers. Does this mean we're talking 1 minute Rounds again? Interesting.

6. "Monsters without Ability Scores", he says. Tons of stuff has ability scores. Rolling these for monsters only as they are needed is a nice touch. Just as that last point on rolling HD for every monster during prep.
-- However, here's the catch with making Ability Scores Saving Throws. Now we really do need to know what they are for every single monster encountered. That single Monster S.T. Matrix looks mighty fine now, huh? My only suggestion for breaking out of this is making A.S. S.T.s PC-only.

6a. Whoops, he says "can lack ability scores". My fault, but I'm leaving it as both points above may still apply. No problem with no A.S.

7. 20 status conditions is not that bad. These are the physical results of different effects (combat, magic, miracles, whatever). But I really think the 3 Fear effects are unnecessary. Isn't this making combat an attrition early decided and long to resolve? (e.g. HP doesn't affect "to hit" ability for a reason)

8. Action economies are needed, but I highly doubt you'll go my way on this. (maybe you're making these optional?) 1st off I go by monster/race. 2nd I include any and every time length but zero (e.g. round, turn, etc.) 3rd these are all unknown and behind the screen on purpose.

9. It was funny to hear early D&D monster creation called 4e, but bad because it might actually be thought of as representing monster traits in the game world. (go figure)
-- FYI, you might want to add a default 1st time monster meeting method instead of naming them outright. Relay all sensed traits available to the PCs and let the players name the "thick red haired humanoids with tusks and porcine snouts". Pigmen is a fine name, even after they learn the creatures call themselves orcs.

10. Lastly, HoOrah! for cursed items.

(Thanks for keeping use afloat and keep up the good work)
 

Of course we are both entitled to our opinions.

I believe that if you were correct, 4e wouldn't be a dead system walking.

I have no idea who's in the lead (and don't really care), but I think that even if 4e has 2/3 of the D&D market, that wouldn't be enough to properly sustain it. Niche of a niche of a niche and all.
 

4. Give the Fighter EVERY Fighting Style listed. Missile, sword & board, two handed, shield wall, whatever. All of that stuff is the complexity and awesomeness of an elite trained warrior. Let 'em play with it rather than "Every one is specialized" and sucks at everything else. Specialization should be custom by the player. "I call this Stabbing Fist School"
Or something in between: any two at first level, and an extra one every 5 levels.

6. "Monsters without Ability Scores", he says.
And later he says skeletons have no Charisma. Something's not right here.
 

Or something in between: any two at first level, and an extra one every 5 levels.

Well, it's only the first 3 levels. My thought was that it worked like 4e's Rogue's Tricks, where you pick two at character creation and then get to add a new one every few levels.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top