Search results

They did: 👇

According to WotC, if the DM is using 2014 rules, it's not a good idea to put 2024 characters into that game.

I'm not complaining. I'm just saying I don't share your opinion of what constitutes impossible.

For what it's worth, this question is not new to D&D 5.5/2024/whatever. We had the exact same debate a few years ago about straight 5E:

I think our ideas about what is "obviously impossible" (and that's not even bringing up arrows and spells) are different enough that we're not going to find common ground here.

And that's enough for you to say that no matter what you roll, there is no way you could possibly hit the invisible creature? I don't find that realistic, personally. You should get a penalty, sure, and debates can be had about how big the penalty should be--but hitting the target should be...

Even if it's standing right in front of you and you see it disappear?

For those arguing that no one should be able to attack while blinded: do you also think a creature should become immediately impossible to attack if it goes invisible?

I don't have a problem with attacking while blinded. The target isn't hidden, so you can still make a guess as to where they are by sound, even for a ranged attack. Disadvantage seems about right to express the "swinging/shooting wildly at a general area and hoping you connect" aspect.

Blindness already imposes disadvantage to attacks. If dim light imposes disadvantage, there's no additional level of penalty for fighting completely blind. Which you may be okay with, but just be aware that this will happen.

Yes, but they're not hanging out in this thread. Maybe not even on this forum.

She's always struck me as the opposite of cynical and pessimistic. Just curious what subjects you think she is that way on?

Dialogue for Zodge Disclaimer: I didn't write any of what is below. It comes from a play-by-post thread on Giant in the Playground forums. However, I'm reproducing the relevant parts here just in case something happens to the original posts. If you choose to use the story hook as written...

I'm more interested in "Randall's" own disclaimer. Why should any of us care whether he plays 5E or not?

As far as I can tell, whether or not to call it a new edition is a purely arbitrary marketing decision. Backwards compatibility didn't stop 2E from being a new edition, nor did it force 3.5 to become a new edition. I was referring to this comment specifically 👇 I'm hearing mixed messages about...

Cute. :p I thought the official line was "Don't do it, because it will cause combat to 'grind'"?

I think I'm with @Ringtail . For the classic dungeon, you need pretty defined rules for things like passage of time and encumbrance.

But not the other way around, apparently.

I mean, 2nd edition was backwards compatible too, right? And they called that an edition.

I thought the official word was that you could use 2014 characters with the 2024 rules? So those supplements would still be compatible as long as you go through 2014 character creation, right?