A Leaked Review of 5E (v1.0)

By its own admission, this is a review of some of the features of the v1.0 of the 5Erules (aka D&D Next), and there’s already a v1.5 out there. The people talking seem to be fans of 4E, but there are a number of interesting observations. I’ll reserve any further comment for the moment, but take a read:

—> HERE <—


Also, please take a minute to check out the Adventures Dark and Deep Kickstarter campaign. Help make the ADD rules supplement, suitable for use with all 1E-compatible games, a reality!

Written by 

Wargamer and RPG'er since the 1970's, author of Adventures Dark and Deep, Castle of the Mad Archmage, and other things, and proprietor of the Greyhawk Grognard blog.

11 thoughts on “A Leaked Review of 5E (v1.0)

  1. The source rails about fighters being boring. I played a fighter in the DDXP preview, and I wasn't bored. Fighters will still be simpler than spell-casters (a good thing IMO), and we haven't seen the power curve, but I expect them to be more competitive than in the olden days.

    Also, the source(s) remarks that the material he saw was only for levels 1-3 then rants that wizards will be able to cast lightning twice per day… actually a 3rd level wizard wouldn't be able to cast it at all.

    It looks like someone very pro 4E got a look at the alpha rules test. While some points brought up are good, a lot can change over the next year or so. I wouldn't get too worked up over this, just seek an avenue to give constructive input where possible.

  2. Real or not, someone is going to be unhappy with 5e and if I was a betting man I'd say the trend is going backward more than forward. From what I've seen this started back with Essentials and they've been waxing nostalgic at WotC ever since.

  3. Confirmed as fake? Seems real enough to me. Not that I'm able to confirm anything, but it seems to go pretty deep into detail.

    As for the person in question not being under the NDA, he's obviously gotten hold of someones copy.

    Of course, now I'll have to follow the ENWorld thread 😉

  4. I'd say that even if it turns out to be a fake (and it very well might be– as Erik points out, a scenario where someone not under an NDA has access to that level of information is interesting in and of itself), it certainly rings true from what we've been told thusfar.

    If it is a fake, it's something thrown out there to gin up angst amongst the 4E fans against the new edition. To what end, who can say? It certainly won't stop it from coming.

  5. The comments are as telling as the "leaked" material … the idea that all of the classes should be balanced against each other is, itself, a 3.x – 4e conceit. My understanding is that Gygax never intended the classes to be "equal" — just that they all be interesting and have something to contribute.

  6. Gene said it. That's the reason I stopped following the 5e threads on WoTC, Enworld and the like. Too much ignorance of the assumptions in the original game. They are coming from an entirely different mindset.

  7. Monte feels that each edition can be defined solely on it's level of rules complexity, which in and of itself proves they are barking up the wrong tree if they are hoping to unite the players of the different editions…

  8. I've never really been of the opinion that fighters are weak at any point in their progression. The thing that really makes fighters is their equipment. Other classes get more power from their class, but are limited in their equipment choices. A fighter, on the other hand, can pick up most weapons in the dungeon and have a pretty good chance of using them.

  9. Monte feels that each edition can be defined solely on it's level of rules complexity

    Yes, he seems to believe players of OD&D, B/X and BECMI do so because they like simpeler rules. That proves he doesn't get it at all.

Comments are closed.