Search results

There's always [REDACTED] This is part of the reason why its so heinous that wotc has dndbeyond as the only option for digital 5e. Anything on d&d beyond can be taken away from you at any moment. Even if they let you keep legacy content you've purchased previously, you won't be able to buy...

This is the most important part of OSR games in my opinion. Make it your own! Do what your table likes! Your Experience WILL Vary.

Here's my preferred stealth rules: Stealth - Skills - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

The only thing consistent in TSR d&d products is that they're inconsistent.

I would not be surprised if there is no expansion for skills in the DMG. Skills weren't given much definition in 5e to begin with (medicine was a single sentence!)

Agree. This is the inevitable stumbling block that anyone new to classic d&d will hit their heads up against. Personally, I am satisfied with Gavin's interpretations in CC #1 and good with making that the official "canon" for my tables. But thief skill adjudication will always be "your table...

I fundamentally disagree with the premise that B/X is a lighter ruleset than 5e. It is just as, if not more complex, particularly in the rules sections which interact specifically with running dungeon crawls.

Yeah, the rules are fine. Ultimately, there will never be a implementation of the TSR thief that 100% of people will like. If you and your players like the OSE d6 thief, use it. You won't ruin your game.

absolutely, but my point is calling a game from 1981 "rules light" on a account of its lower page-count isn't much of an argument.

Yeah but the cost of that is the layout is an absolute nightmare.

B/X was written for and assumes a party size of like 9 or so Players (not characters, PLAYERS), in addition to any henchmen/hirelings along with them. It was essential to have player in charge of 'wrangling' the other players rather than put that burden on the GM on top of everything else...

If someone put up a "review" of a RPG product and had literally no flip-through, showed off no art, etc. it wouldn't be worth my time to watch.

Except for the invisibility spell, where they ARE using it to mean "you turn translucent"

You cannot possibly believe in good faith that invisible is meant to be interpreted "no one is looking at you at the moment" and not "you are naughty word invisible"

I'm invisible all the time

WotC should write rules that are clear and don't require "fixes" on day 1 to function

I would not be surprised if they meant to remove it entirely and forgot

Gotta make it forwards compatible for the next dnd-based video game.

My understanding is that it looked different and different is bad.

Having a condition called "invisible" that does not include, as part of its effects, being invisible, is a pretty big design failure.