Something Awful leak.

[Mark CMG]

I've beta tested release 1.5 of a game, and not been selected to test 1.6. It's not that uncommon to switch testers, especially if they haven't been helpful (and judging by that guy's opinions, I doubt it was that helpful of feedback provided)

Okay, that's a fair point. Given that information, it seems risky to drop playtesters midway through the process, especially since if you drop them because you don't like their feedback it probably increases the chance of a leak.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

deleted

 

[Dausuul]

There were also a whole slew of Enworlders who shot down that other leak. People who claimed (I am assuming correctly) to have seen the actual playtest rules.

They are all remarkably quiet on this particular leak.

Sounds pretty real to me.

It was only posted late last night. Give it a day or two.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

I am primarily a 1st Edition AD&D grognard with a strong preference for playing heavily-armoured Fighter-types, though I kinda liked what 4E Essentials did with the Knight and Slayer.

I read through this and didn't find anything too offensive. I don't really see where the Wizard is so much better than the Fighter in this rough set of rules; I thought the options presented for the Fighter sounded cool and fun.

Fighters are my favorite class, and I would play the game presented in that leak.

I'd be interested in seeing more, especially more types of armour than just scale.

I like that the distances are given in feet rather than in squares; it has a delightful 1E feel to it.

I really like the different weapon damage types, and I dearly hope that those will affect various types of armour differently.

I think that's really what I'd like to see for this edition: like 1E, but with more Cool Toys for Fighters. That'd satisfy me, anyway...

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

I think they're gearing up for an April Fools joke.

Anything that is behind a > is just their forum users responding to the playtest. That's not actually in the playtest itself.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Wait for the public betatesting before going nuclear I say.

I'm quoting Wulfgar, but the message is for everybody.

If you feel like going nuclear when you see the public betatesting, don't do it here.

ENworld loves fruitful discussion about personal likes and dislikes, but anyone going nuclear is likely to face banning of some duration. Nuclear rarely promotes peace...

Thanks

 

[avin]

I don't know, seems plausible to me... and I'm already worried about Fighters...

 

[GX.Sigma]

It rings true to me because the author has to distort and selectively ignore the facts to bash it.

Wizards get at-will powers. No more crossbows!
Fighters still don't get .
...The Class descriptions for both wizard and fighter list a set of abilities.
The Wizards get cantrips/feats: Detect Magic, Javelin of Fire, Mage Armor, Ritual caster.
Fighters get fighting styles: Archer, Guardian, Slayer, Two-Weapon fighting.
The Wizard get all of the abilities listed. The Fighter gets to *pick one*.

Actually, from the facts the leaker presented earlier, the wizard gets:

• Cantrips/Feats: Detect Magic, Flame Javelin (1d6 at-will), Ritual Caster, Mage Armor (+2 AC for free)
• Spells (including Knock, which is apparently pure Monte Cook evil)

While the fighter gets:

• Doesn't have to confirm to deal 1d10 critical damage (but can confirm for even more damage)
• +2 damage with all weapon attacks
• Fighter's Surge (Action point, seemingly even off-turn)
• Choice of fighting style: Archer (shoot twice at a penalty), Guardian (defender aura), Slayer (+1d10 on a hit, recharges with short rest), Two-Weapon (two-weapon defense plus extra attack at a penalty)

Note that it doesn't mention how much HP or AC the wizard has to start with (if they're unarmored, a free +2 AC sounds more like a quick-and-dirty math fix than anything), or how much damage the fighter's melee attacks deal (presumably more than 1d6).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

It rings true to me because the author has to distort and selectively ignore the facts to bash it.

Actually, from the facts the leaker presented earlier, the wizard gets:

• Cantrips/Feats: Detect Magic, Flame Javelin (1d6 at-will), Ritual Caster, Mage Armor (+2 AC for free)
• Spells (including Knock, which is apparently pure Monte Cook evil)

While the fighter gets:

• Doesn't have to confirm to deal 1d10 critical damage (but can confirm for even more damage)
• +2 damage with all weapon attacks
• Fighter's Surge (Action point, seemingly even off-turn)
• Choice of fighting style: Archer (shoot twice at a penalty), Guardian (defender aura), Slayer (+1d10 on a hit, recharges with short rest), Two-Weapon (two-weapon defense plus extra attack at a penalty)

Note that it doesn't mention how much HP or AC the wizard has to start with (if they're unarmored, a free +2 AC sounds more like a quick-and-dirty math fix than anything), or how much damage the fighter's melee attacks deal (presumably more than 1d6).

You're wrong in that there are two Fighter vs Wizards complaints. First is that Fighters were weak, and the second that they were boring. While there isn't enough in the leak to really say for sure that Fighters will be weak, what they describe is certainly a return to "swings a sword" with little variation and a return to boredom. It can be argued that Fighters being boring is a matter of taste, but to those who want Fighters to do more than swing a sword this is pretty much epic fail.

 

[Scribble]

You're wrong in that there are two Fighter vs Wizards complaints. First is that Fighters were weak, and the second that they were boring. While there isn't enough in the leak to really say for sure that Fighters will be weak, what they describe is certainly a return to "swings a sword" with little variation and a return to boredom. It can be argued that Fighters being boring is a matter of taste, but to those who want Fighters to do more than swing a sword this is pretty much epic fail.

Sure, but if the aim is to start with a game that resembles basic (or at least allows you to have the same "feel") and then have options you can layer on top to get a more 4e feel who cares?

Personally I'd like to see an "easy version" of ALL the characters to start... I'd be less upset about a "simple" fighter (since adding complexity is easier then removing) and more upset about not having a wizard type class that is simple (if this play test proves true.)