Something Awful leak.

[thecasualoblivion]

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.)

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.

 

[tlantl]

... (including Knock, which is apparently pure Monte Cook evil)

You know, badmouthing the people you want influence in the decision making isn't the most productive way to do it.

If it were me, I'd be reluctant to listen very closely to anyone who can't give feedback without taking swipes at me.

The developers develop games. They have ideas that may or may not work for everyone. I'm sure there are going to be things in the game I don't like as there will for the majority of us. If a spell is so offensive that you don't want it in your game then take a big black marker and get rid of it.

The rules don't abuse themselves players and dungeon masters do.

If a spell caster is stealing your thunder then kill him, kick him out of the group, talk to the guy playing the offensive character. Don't hate on the guys who made the game, hate on the jerk ruining your fun.

Your opinion isn't my opinion. The stuff you find offensive is perfectly reasonable for others.

 

[GX.Sigma]

You know, badmouthing the people you want influence in the decision making isn't the most productive way to do it.

If it were me, I'd be reluctant to listen very closely to anyone who can't give feedback without taking swipes at me.

The developers develop games. They have ideas that may or may not work for everyone. I'm sure there are going to be things in the game I don't like as there will for the majority of us. If a spell is so offensive that you don't want it in your game then take a big black marker and get rid of it.

The rules don't abuse themselves players and dungeon masters do.

If a spell caster is stealing your thunder then kill him, kick him out of the group, talk to the guy playing the offensive character. Don't hate on the guys who made the game, hate on the jerk ruining your fun.

Your opinion isn't my opinion. The stuff you find offensive is perfectly reasonable for others.

I was being sarcastic. I don't believe Knock (or Monte Cook) are necessarily bad things for the game, just that whomever posted this "leak" definitely does. I was using it as an example of how biased the leaker is, to support my argument that the leaker is going out of his way to make the system look bad.

 

[Savage Wombat]

My proposal: If the leak is fake, WotC should say so.

If the leak is based off real info, then WotC should speak up (silence is consent, as previously mentioned.)

What they should say is something like "Well, it does look like he saw a very early playtest document, but he sure misinterpreted a bunch of stuff, and we've changed a lot since then." That would limit or squash further speculation on the post, without giving out any information WotC doesn't want released. And it would continue to show that they're responsive to the community at large.

 

[tlantl]

I was being sarcastic (I thought "apparently" connoted that; apparently not). I don't believe Knock (or Monte Cook) are necessarily bad things for the game, just that whomever posted this "leak" definitely does. I was using it as an example of how biased the leaker is, to support my argument that the leaker is going out of his way to make the system look bad.

My apologies.

There are so many people taking swipes at Mr. Cook for one thing or another, deservedly or not, that it's getting old.

My post was directed toward those people not you in particular. That was just the catalyst.

I'm pretty sure the guy who wrote that was looking for attention. whether the stuff in his post is real or woven from whole cloth doesn't much matter. The game is more than a year away from being close to done and you and I will be able to give it a test drive before we actually have to decide if we are going to buy it or not.


I'll likely buy the core rules regardless of whether I'm going to actually play them for completeness sake. The price of a few books isn't going to kill me and if I can enjoy using those books, all the better.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

There are so many people taking swipes at Mr. Cook for one thing or another, deservedly or not, that it's getting old.

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.

 

[billd91]

If the leak is based off real info, then WotC should speak up (silence is consent, as previously mentioned.)

Silence is not consent. Anyone who infers that it is assumes too much.

 

[Piratecat]

My proposal: If the leak is fake, WotC should say so.

If the leak is based off real info, then WotC should speak up (silence is consent, as previously mentioned.)

What they should say is something like "Well, it does look like he saw a very early playtest document, but he sure misinterpreted a bunch of stuff, and we've changed a lot since then." That would limit or squash further speculation on the post, without giving out any information WotC doesn't want released. And it would continue to show that they're responsive to the community at large.

No they shouldn't. They should ignore it. There's no upside to commenting, and it can only make them look defensive.

If it's false, it won't even be relevant, right? And if its true, it involves early rules that will look completely different by the time the game launches. I'm not sure they gain anything. The best thing they can do in my opinion is keep their mouths shut, read the analysis of the true-or-not-true report, and examine their rules accordingly.

EDIT: I sound cranky here. I apologize. It's annoying knowing whether it's true or not and not being able to say anything either way.

 

[Tovec]

Silence is not consent. Anyone who infers that it is assumes too much.

I think they're only saying silence is consent when in the past they were not silent about something that was wrong.

Not silent = incorrect
Silent = correct

I'm not saying I agree with it but I do understand the premise.
Honestly, I think it has just been too soon to expect a response either way.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

No they shouldn't. They should ignore it. There's no upside to commenting, and it can only make them look defensive.

If it's false, it won't even be relevant, right? And if its true, it involves early rules that will look completely different by the time the game launches. I'm not sure they gain anything. The best thing they can do in my opinion is keep their mouths shut, read the analysis of the true-or-not-true report, and examine their rules accordingly.

This assumes that it doesn't become a festering wound that radicalizes 4E players expecting to be screwed over by 5E.

Personally I put more stock in the lack of actual playtesters stepping forward to refute it.