Search results

Interesting. So not only is this adventure already canonically distinct from the original (because different editions, 1e vs 2014 5e), but they added an extra layer of separation by making this an explicitly Forgotten Realms version of the adventure. (If modifiable.) Seems easy enough for...

Len Lakofka's infamous article "Notes on Women & Magic" from Dragon #3 is the oldest such thing in the game I'm aware of.

User name is an old, old nickname, based on my initials. Avatar (which I've used elsewhere, but until this very moment had not bothered to add here!) is because I like classic Doctor Who. Someone had to be boring.

I'd settle for them releasing Holmes in PDF, it's one of the few incarnations of D&D not on the DM Guild. (The other being 3.0.)

Assuming a reasonably clever demon, I assume they'd eventually start scheming to make sure you had a kid, planned or otherwise.

Yup: D&D (2024) - Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux? 53.1% yep, 46.9% nope. A new poll could be interesting, once the PHB previews are finished.

@Remathilis @Micah Sweet Please stop.

Fortunately, the Internet Archive saves the day: D&D Canon | D&D Studio Blog | Dungeons & Dragons Though I agree, unless the policy makes an official comeback, who knows if it's still... canon? (Seriously, though, I expect the policy would remain in place on the design side, even if not...

There's definitely no one being called out or shamed for their setting preferences in their home game. Not one bit of judgment. No sir.

To be fair, we've only seen previews of the player-side stuff - theoretically we'll see stuff to help the DMs when the DMG previews start. However, I do agree that those comments @SlyFlourish found are a concern. I thought they were past endorsing player vs. DM at this point.

Yeah, I assumed this was why they made a point of including Basic D&D monsters like the athach and aranea in the 3e Monster Manual.

I only recently encountered these for the first time at a work potluck, and they were called "walking tacos" there.

Not running a current 5e campaign, just some one-shots planned for the next few months. If I did start a new one, I'd be sticking with 2014 5e as the base, maybe with some house rules. If I use anything from 2024 material - which is entirely dependent on whether the new Monster Manual impresses...

Based on Monsters of the Multiverse, I expect this to be Wizards' view on many of the humanoid monsters in the 2025 MM. (Quite probably a lot of the other monsters too.)

Say you're new to D&D with 2024, and you see an old adventure on the shelves. It looks pretty neat to you. The 2024 core rulebooks are telling you the old stuff is compatible. You check and there's no sign of an updated version in the works. Why wouldn't you take the new rulebooks at their word...

If they don't update the old adventures, and just keep them in print unchanged, the only people that will buy them are people that don't have them yet. If they do update the old adventures, they will 100% get some people to buy them a second time. Therefore, updating the old adventures means...

Each edition is its own canon at this point, so I guess pick which one has the interpretation you like and go with that: 1e (and 2e?) Greyhawk's separation, 3e Greyhawk and 4e canon's unified approach, or 5e's apparently restored separation. (Wonder which the 2024 core era will go with.)

Read 40 Years of Gen Con, an oral history (plus pictures) of the convention from 1967 to 2007. Kind of doubles as an oral history of the RPG industry. Interesting read if you like firsthand accounts. There's even a section on the ENnies!

I imagine Phandelver and Below foreshadows their plans for old adventures - take popular old adventures, modify them with new material and improve their compatibility with the new rules, then take the old adventure out of print when the update is released. I also expect only certain adventures...

This may have been true in 2e canon, but the 5e canon makes no mention of it. (Unlike ogrillons, which are still described as half-ogres in 5e.)