Something Awful leak.

[Piratecat]

And to hit your point, Catastrophic, I think they've promised 4e-style rules modules. I'll be fascinated and excited to see those go into place.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

And to hit your point, Catastrophic, I think they've promised 4e-style rules modules. I'll be fascinated and excited to see those go into place.

To echo Catastrophic, specific rules aren't the issue. My preference for 4E is in a large part based on the smooth running excellence of the base skeleton. If the game is going to deliver the balance and elegance of 4E(which are more important than the specifics like tactical combat), its going to have to do those things at the core. If the core fails at this, no amount of modular fixes is going be able remedy it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

That's not what a playtest document is, though. That's what a bible is, or a constitution is, or a manifesto is.

A playtest document is a bunch of rules mushed into a ball, chewed up, and spit at some trusted critics, so that they can beat the rules against actual play experience to see what valuable things fall out.

It wouldn't be a playtest if it was foundational and clear and key. A playtest is pre-foundation, inherently unclear, and basically entirely up to change.

That's part of why the leaker, I think, is such a good example of why WotC doesn't release rules like this this early on: people assume it is more important and immutable than it actually is.

It's a starting point, nothing more. It doesn't resemble the end product anymore than Pong resembles Skyrim.

 

[Quickleaf]

And to hit your point, Catastrophic, I think they've promised 4e-style rules modules. I'll be fascinated and excited to see those go into place.

Me too! I caught a little tidbit from the "possibly a leak" post at SA that made me pause:

A clarification before I get too deeply into spells, this is only level 1-3, and so it only includes up to level 2 spells (like old school, you can cast spells of half your level rounded up.)

Whether or not there's any truth to that, one of the things I like about 4e is how character/caster level maps to power/spell level. In 4e if I play a 9th level mage my highest level spells are 9th level. In older editions I believe my highest level spells would be 5th level. I know 4e broke with tradition here and the math (half rounded up) is easy, but when it comes to explaining the game to new players I've found the 4e version so much simpler.

I remember introducing a friend to D&D (we were playing 2e then) and she wanted to play a wizard, so I put together a simplified wizard so she could join the ongoing game. I recall the "max spell level is half your level rounded up" rule being very confusing for her.

In retrospect, letting a new player run a level 9 mage was not my brightest DM moment.

So what if D&D5 took a play from 4e as to spell level naming conventions? So in 4e there are no 4th level or 8th level powers/spells - Go figure. What if the level at which you learned a spell *was* that spell's level.

For example, a 9th level Mage gets to learn a 5th level spell for the first time, which is a big deal since that includes things like Cone of Cold, Cloudkill, Conjure Elemental, and Teleport (at least going off my memory of Basic). So what if we renamed those "9th level spells"?

Just a thought.

 

[OnlineDM]

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.

As I recall on the fake leak that came out on the Giant in the Playground forums, you and others (other play testers and Trevor Kidd of WotC) chimed in on EN World to say that it was fake. You're not doing that this time around, which makes people think that it's real.

I haven't even read the post in question yet; I decided I would first skim this EN World thread to look for the denials from people "in the know". I haven't seen any such denials.

I think it's entirely possible that WotC sent out a message to play testers after the last leak was debunked saying, "Listen everyone, if other 'leaks' show up online in the future, please don't comment on their veracity whether they're true or false. We don't want to give any information about that sort of thing right now." Unfortunately, if that message did go out, it has not been communicated to the community at large, so we don't know about it.

All of this leads people to believe that non-debunked "leaks" are true. I don't personally care one way or the other (I'll wait for the play test), but I admit that the lack of denial on this leak coupled with the denial of the earlier leak makes me think that whatever this "leaker" said is probably true. And again, I haven't even read it!

 

[Szatany]

And some of it doesn't make sense. Ability scores are capped at 20 but you get +1 to your prime ability every 3 levels? If the game goes 1-20 for levels and you use the array thus give your prime stat a 15 to start, it'll hit 21 at 18th...but the cap is...20. Huh.

Sure it does. As soon as you reach the cap, you must put your +1s into other abilities.

 

[Klaus]

Me too! I caught a little tidbit from the "possibly a leak" post at SA that made me pause:



Whether or not there's any truth to that, one of the things I like about 4e is how character/caster level maps to power/spell level. In 4e if I play a 9th level mage my highest level spells are 9th level. In older editions I believe my highest level spells would be 5th level. I know 4e broke with tradition here and the math (half rounded up) is easy, but when it comes to explaining the game to new players I've found the 4e version so much simpler.

I remember introducing a friend to D&D (we were playing 2e then) and she wanted to play a wizard, so I put together a simplified wizard so she could join the ongoing game. I recall the "max spell level is half your level rounded up" rule being very confusing for her.

In retrospect, letting a new player run a level 9 mage was not my brightest DM moment.

So what if D&D5 took a play from 4e as to spell level naming conventions? So in 4e there are no 4th level or 8th level powers/spells - Go figure. What if the level at which you learned a spell *was* that spell's level.

For example, a 9th level Mage gets to learn a 5th level spell for the first time, which is a big deal since that includes things like Cone of Cold, Cloudkill, Conjure Elemental, and Teleport (at least going off my memory of Basic). So what if we renamed those "9th level spells"?

Just a thought.

Back during the 3e era, I seem to recall someone posting an idea about turning the 9 spell levels into 20, allowing spells that were "a bit too good for their level" to be placed in a slightly higher tier.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I guess what I'm feeling right now is "You're not just any playtester, you're Piratecat. You're one of the voices of ENWorld, and one of WotC's biggest supporters since before 3.0 was even released."

I think you should talk to someone about getting permission to make some sort of official statement, even if it's just "WotC has specifically asked us not to comment on rules leaks" or, what I'd prefer, "WotC understands that leaks like this happen, and has allowed us to reassure you that the core rules are very much in flux at this point."

They owe that to you, and to us, I think. They can give us support without cutting their own legs off.

 

[GX.Sigma]

If anyone wanted to see the leak's contents in a condensed (and hopefully as neutral as possible) form:

[sblock]Stats
· Rolling primary method. Array is something like 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.
· Race is +1/-1. Class is +1 to the prime stat (but only if it’s your first class—3.x multiclassing is in effect).
· At level 3, +1 to one stat.
· CON: Your starting hit points is equal to your CON score.
· INT: Extra languages.
· CHA: Loyalty and Max Henchmen
· WIS: Gives bonus to CHA saves (?)
· Score maximums: 18+class+race, so 20 is max, but not clear what “max” means.

Races
· +1/-1 to stats.
· Dwarf: Dwarven weapon training (good with hammers and axes); darkvision 10’.
· Halfling: Automatic proficiency in slings, thrown, etc.
· Human: +1 to all saves, and two bonus d6 that can be applied to any d20 roll(s) in a day.
· Dwarves move 20’, halflings 25’, everyone else seems to be 30’.

Classes
· Skills: +2 for passive checks; +1 for active checks.
· Wizard

[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Detect Magic
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Flame Javelin (at-will)
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]ritual caster
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Mage Armor (+2 AC for the rest of the day).
​

· Fighter

[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]d10 HD
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]d10 crit dice (don’t have to confirm to deal the extra damage, but can confirm to deal even more damage)
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Fighting Style

§ Archer: When you shoot, you can shoot again at -5
§ Guardian: Adjacent enemies get -2 to attacks if they don’t include you
§ Slayer: Do an extra d10 on a hit, but then can’t do it again until your next long or short rest
§ Two-weapon fighting: +1 to AC; when you hit with your main weapon, you can attack with your off-hand weapon at -5 (but if you do, you lose the AC bonus until your next turn)
​

[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]“Skills”: +1 to break down doors, smash “compartments”, or destroy objects
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]+2 to damage rolls with weapon attacks
[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Fighter’s surge: Once per day, the fighter can take an action at any time.
​

Spells
· Spell lists, “spells per level” tables
· Knock: Opens anything. Stuff that’s welded shut, portals held by chains, etc.
· Charm Person: level 1 (brd, drd, wrlk, wiz); Turns someone into a trusted friend and companion. Won’t do anything outside of normal, etc. Target remembers being charmed.
· Invisibility: level 2 (brd, src, wrlk, wiz): DC 17 concealment, advantage against all creatures you attack. It goes away if you do anything harmful.
· Animate Dead: Exists in some form; has a max HD

System
· "Advantage," "combat advantage," "skill advantage," "+2 to skill" - Not normalized yet.
· Crits: Max damage on 20, plus crit dice on confirm, and 20s explode.
· Rules for donning and removing armor

[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Heavy armor takes 1d4+1 minutes to remove
​

· Many of the rules for the playtest documents were copied directly from older sources

[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Many 4e-like rules are reworded
​

· Monsters can lack ability scores—they aren’t susceptible to attacks vs. that ability.

[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]A wraith with "–" STR can’t be bull rushed; a golem with "–" CON can’t be poisoned
​

[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]Undead lack CHA, which means the current version of Turn Undead technically doesn’t work on them.
​

· Nine alignment axis is back, as are items that have mechanical effects based on alignment.
· 20 status conditions, many of them similar or overlapping
· Healing surges are gone; each rest gives you a certain amount of HP back.
· Action economy is not strictly called out.

[FONT=&quot]o [/FONT]There are no “move actions”, etc.; such things are described in prose.
​

· “the core maths of the system don't scale with level anymore. There's no base attack bonus and no 4e-style +halflevel, no skill points and no +level to skills either. Absent feats and so on, you have the same chance to hit at level 12 as you did at level 2.”

Monsters
· "Monsters are built 4e-style. They're divided into minion/standard/elite/solo and monsters of increasing rank get more hp and damage per round. Their hp, damage, and AC/to-hit/to-hit-with-spell all scale with level."
· "So anyway, the rules tell you to pencil in what you think the monster's ability scores might be, then compute its hitpoints and attacks and so on. If it makes multiple attacks, divide its per-round damage by the number of attacks it's supposed to make and otherwise mess with the math so everything lines up with the provided table. (Presumably, this is the point when you go back and fill in the monster's precise ability scores, carefully massaging its Str to line up with the static damage bonus on its melee attack, etcetera)."

Items
· Potion of Delusion (Healing): When you drink it, it heals d8 HP, but the next time you take damage, you take an extra d8.
· Unknown item: Each enemy you kill is raised as a 1 HD zombie under your control which doesn’t count against the max HD of undead you can control with Animate Dead.[/sblock]

Of course, it goes without saying that all this information could be false. And even if it's true, it's likely far outdated by now.

 

[am181d]

I guess what I'm feeling right now is "You're not just any playtester, you're Piratecat. You're one of the voices of ENWorld, and one of WotC's biggest supporters since before 3.0 was even released."

I think you should talk to someone about getting permission to make some sort of official statement, even if it's just "WotC has specifically asked us not to comment on rules leaks" or, what I'd prefer, "WotC understands that leaks like this happen, and has allowed us to reassure you that the core rules are very much in flux at this point."

They owe that to you, and to us, I think. They can give us support without cutting their own legs off.

1) if it's a real leak, Wizards is under no obligation to say so
2) if it's a real leak, it's of preliminary material that may or may not reflect where the game is a month, six months, or a year from now
3) if it's a real leak, it's a leak presented WITH bias and WITHOUT context

If people are wringing their hands and spitting curses over this, they need to relax. By all means, discuss the things you like or find objectionable, form theories, make suggestions, etc.

But if anybody's freaking out right now, it's their own fault, not Wizards.