Spoilers: Some guy in Friends & Family playtest apparently violates his NDA

[keterys]

The stuff I've playtested sure isn't the same, I can say that much.

Even if it is real, and they were playtesting different stuff than the several testers who've chimed in this thread. Well, I guess their group won't get any more testing to do? And yay for WotC doing _lots_ of varied testing?

But, yeah, _mountain-like_ grain of salt time.

 

[pauljathome]

Except... hmm. Looks like he's discussing 4e compatibility modules, classes etc. that DDXP reports said weren't written yet. I'd be awfully impressed if the developers could have gotten back from DDXP, written them, and distributed them to playtesters before any internal testing.

He claims that he got his package in December so WOTC would have needed this information at least a month BEFORE DDXP.

So, I have the choice of believing a semi literate anonymous poster or the WOTC developers. Colour my naive and foolish if you want, but I think that I'm going with WOTC on this .

 

[Khaalis]

On a side note to all those who dislike the use of the term "Powers" for martial classes...

Would "tricks" or "maneuvers" be more acceptable terminology?

It seems like this is just a semantics argument. Or is the objection specifically to any non At-Will type of power?

For instance if you had a Power called Trip Attack... would it be any different than having a Trip maneuver? Or is the primary argument geared toward the Trip power being forced into say an Encounter Power rather than at At-Will "action"?

 

[Oni]

Got any evidence to back this up?

WotC, if they're smart, will quickly address this as fake, if in fact it is. Because as it stands, until I see real evidence that this is fake, I'm really not at all interested in 5th any longer (but to be honest my interest has been fading with each L&L article Monte writes).

Guess you'll just have to not be interested until the Beta comes out and proves it's fake, then you can resume being interested.

Though given your seeming reliance on evidence I'm not sure why you would take the word of some random guy on the internet without one shred of it.

And really even if Piratecat did spill the beans on something it wouldn't amount to anymore more than his word against random internet guy's, well short of him posting pictures of himself rolling around on a bed full of playtest documents like some scene out of Indecent Proposal.

 

[Scribble]

If PCat says it's a fake I will leave it at that.

 

[Scribble]

well short of him posting pictures of himself rolling around on a bed full of playtest documents like some scene out of Indecent Proposal.

Where is weem when you need him...

 

[Sammael]

On a side note to all those who dislike the use of the term "Powers" for martial classes...

Would "tricks" or "maneuvers" be more acceptable terminology?

It seems like this is just a semantics argument. Or is the objection specifically to any non At-Will type of power?

For instance if you had a Power called Trip Attack... would it be any different than having a Trip maneuver? Or is the primary argument geared toward the Trip power being forced into say an Encounter Power rather than at At-Will "action"?

My objection is primarily to the existence of non-magical encounter and daily powers.

I very much dislike the terminology (I prefer "special ability" instead of "power" because "power" has a specific connotation), but it's not a deal breaker. In my own system, fighters get Maneuvers, rogues get Tricks, and rangers get Exploits.

 

[The_Baldman]

Fake

 

[avin]

On a side note to all those who dislike the use of the term "Powers" for martial classes...

Would "tricks" or "maneuvers" be more acceptable terminology?

It seems like this is just a semantics argument. Or is the objection specifically to any non At-Will type of power?

For instance if you had a Power called Trip Attack... would it be any different than having a Trip maneuver? Or is the primary argument geared toward the Trip power being forced into say an Encounter Power rather than at At-Will "action"?

As Sammael said, "power" have some connatation that simply doesn't fit well on D&D Fantasy.

"Maneuver" is fine.

As for "encounter" and "daily" powers for melee classes, that just doesn't make any sense outside the "gamist" world. Works fine on 4E, but I think a lot of players Wotc want to come back dislike that line between combat and the rest of the game.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

My objection is primarily to the existence of non-magical encounter and daily powers.

I very much dislike the terminology (I prefer "special ability" instead of "power" because "power" has a specific connotation), but it's not a deal breaker. In my own system, fighters get Maneuvers, rogues get Tricks, and rangers get Exploits.

But the thing is if there's Spells, Prayers, Maneuvers, Invocations, Exploits, Disciplines, Tricks, Hexes and so on, people are always going to call them Powers even if it isn't an official term anymore. Simply because they fall under the same general umbrella of "special things to do".