Recent content by Crimson Longinus

It has literally been decades since I've read the books, but was Goldmoon depicted as unambiguously white? Because I always imagined that she was 'a Native American' with blond hair just like Storm from X-Men is African with white hair.

Not true. Now you can go against the type by playing an elf wizard instead of the optimal mountain dwarf wizard!

I think your option 2 is a sensible way for culture like this to actually exist. I guess I'm in the minority of actually liking the kender. I'm really not a fan of Dragonlance, but I found the kender to be a nice fresh take on the halflings (if somewhat crude and cartoonish one.) So the...

I removed instrument proficiencies to avoid such an overlap. Performance skill can just cover it all.

The thing is most people didn't do it in 2E, as they recognised that psionics system was even more of a convoluted mess than the rest of the game and simply ignored it. If you want psionics to be something that people actually use, instead of some niche thing for a handful of die-hard psionic...

Yes. What is not RAW is that location of everyone is automatically known otherwise. And that's all I've been saying. Yes, they could hide, but sometimes they don't need to because them being fucking invisible and the general chaos of battle might make their foes lose the track of them...

I am not wrong about what is actually written in the rules. The thing is not defined in the rules with the clarity you claim and we have both heard Crawford say that this is intentional. I have never claimed that rules support my handling of this as only correct one (granted, unlike you, I...

Yes, because the discussion has been what is RAW and Crawford's musings do not change that. If we wants to alter what the rules say he has power to issue erratas. And of course like with the rules, you overinterpret the podcast too. The intents is that the rules are vague intentionally and can...

Right. So I actually finally listened what Crawford says on that podcast. So he basically says that they intentionally wrote the rules to be open to interpretation, and if you want to run it as tactical game with the position known then that works and if you want to run it as more narratively as...

Rules do not say this. But yes, it is reasonable common sense assumption that you will know location of another creature you can see. Yes. And as (like you just agreed,) our baseline detection relies on being of able to see, that has now gone out of the window! There is no difference between...

The rules basically say nothing about knowing the locations of creatures in general. The default state that you're imagining simply isn't something that exists in the rules.

Right. But certainly if you know that they're nearby you have 'noticed' them, and thus 'noticing' doesn't necessarily mean knowing the location? Yes, that probably would be more straightforward. But I didn't write these rules, I'm just reading them. Though one reasonable difference might be...

My stance is that you don't automatically know location of invisible things. This is not the same that they cannot be noticed. They can be noticed (i.e. their presence know) and even their location can be known if they give it away or someone notices them for some other reason. In many...

They don't have disadvantage, the rule specifically says that. But yeah, they don't really see invisible, thus I used the quotation marks. But I really don't get how you have so hard time parsing the rule. It may be somewhat poorly written but the intent seems pretty clear. There is a an...

Neither of them needs to be wrong. My reading doesn't disregard any rules, merely accepts that the rules do not cover every situation and that the GM uses at least a modicum of common sense. That hiding makes your location unknown, doesn't in any way require that other things couldn't make your...