Something Awful leak.

[Noir le Lotus]

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

That was my impression as well.

I really liked 3.X edition, but I'm really not appealed by this new edition.

 

[D'karr]

Sometime ago I said in another thread that they needed a lot more tweaking before doing an open test.

The reaction I'm seeing to these news kind of bears that out.

 

[Hassassin]

Other than the hostile commentary, it doesn't contain many very bad things. Most issues I would have with the rules as described (like lack of consistent actions, incoherent list of conditions) seem likely to be representative only of the early state of the playtest.

In fact, other than some more details on the ability score system, it contains almost no really new information.

 

[delericho]

That sounds absolutely horrible.

But... I also doubt very much that it's real. Some of the stuff there is so obviously bad that I can't believe it would even reach a first draft playtest document.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think this is a rather obvious fake.

 

[KarinsDad]

And so the 5E edition war starts.

 

[Ettin]

Well, anyone familiar with grognards.txt knows SA goons are a bunch of lying jerks anyway, so.

 

[Mercurius]

I have not read the entire thread, but let's get a couple things clear:

1) This is based upon Playtest v 1.0
2) It is the basic game and doesn't include any modular options, which means...
3) 4E-esque elements were probably not included

To put it another way, it is a lot easier to add "4E style" onto a 3Eish base game than it would be to take out 4E-esque elements to make a "3E style" game.

Make sense? Good, now we can all relax.

 

[JonWake]

I'd really love to hear what all these HORRIBAD O NOES I HATE EVRYTHING bits are. Or is overreaction a D&D fan class feature?

 

[Piratecat]

Folks, whether this is true or not, and whether you love it or hate it, don't use this as an opportunity for edition warring or insulting other people.