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

[Kynn]

Here are some purported actual mechanical details about 5e, posted over at Giant in the Playground forums.

I wonder if this is legit info.

Admin edit: it's been proven that this information is fake. See post 104 in this thread for more information. -- Piratecat

 

[Daven]

I don't know if it is legit, but surely he is not so friendly and familiar with WOTC...

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Wow, if that post is legit, I'm done with 5e. That sounds horrible.

 

[tlantl]

As I read that post I felt a growing sense of horror.

I am especially appalled at the d20+modifier saving throw. I guess I can see where the 'every body likes to roll the dice' statement concerning casters came from.

I still can't see how a guy called warlord is a healer.

Looks like my hopes for a more classic looking D&D have been dashed.

 

[trancejeremy]

I don't mind the warlord healing, since I was used to Bards with Druid spells. (and since hit points aren't injuries necessarily, I can see inspiration stuff, be it songs or a motivational speech perking people up).

But I really find the rolling saves like that annoying, the per encounter powers, and "advantage" which apparently requires knowing where all characters are exactly, rather than abstractly.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

It sounds pretty bad, and not at all something I would be interested in. But it's an early playtest.

 

[Danzauker]

Not convinced the info is entirely true, but even in case it's just early palytest.

Anyway, happy to see they're not just ditching all the good things 4e introduced, like A/E/D powers and warlord healing, just to please the elderly.

It's also nice they are experimenting with different kinds of wizards, one that seems vancian (and supplies for at will or encounter powers via feats) and one not. Though I think they'd better call the other sorcerer or something like that. I think two versions of the same class with completely different mechanics can be confusing.

Not convinced by the opposed roll for spells. Too much work for little gain. Unless this is just a playtest, of course.

 

[tlantl]

....

Not convinced by the opposed roll for spells. Too much work for little gain. Unless this is just a playtest, of course.

Yes it's just a play test. They are testing stuff they want to put in the game. Garbage like this becomes rules if they get enough positive or too little negative feedback.

I certainly hope they have a whole lot of other ideas to present before making any decisions, but from that little snippet I think they need to start over.

But that's just me.

I can waste a couple of hundred dollars else where as easily.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Only thing I really did not like was the opposed rolls for spells. i have played with some people where the thiswould really slow down the game.

 

[Raith5]

Hang on sec. In a post further down the thread he says that the two wizards set their DCs by different means - one has set DCs, the other rolls for DCs!

Not sure if this is true but it seems to square with some of the other information made public.

One initial feeling I have, again if this post is true, is that the fire javelin spell just sounds boring. If it is magical cant it have some other effect?