Search results

The closest shift, based on the what we know at the moment, is 3.0 => 3.5 (or maybe 1e => 2e or B/X => BECMI but I am not sure of all the details of those changes). 4e Essentials is no more a shift from 4e than 5e Essentials is from 5e. Nobody knows what the final form of the game will look...

THIS. IS. AN. EDITION. WARRIOR. LIE. Sorry, but this particular bit of misinformation has been repeated at least three time in the last couple of days, and I am done being polite about it. Yes, Essentials conincided with several errata, and incorporated those errata (and all the previous ones)...

Essentials is not. The rest are their own editions, but they are not their own editions with a "core trio of books called the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide", which was what @Parmandur said.

Yes, a new version that was fully compatible and usable alongside. Do you really believe that using the 2014 humans and the 2024 human alongside each other will be intended or feasible?

Do you really believe that the new human is intended to be played alongside the two old ones? I guess we'll see which of us is right.

But this playtest as humans in it (to pick an example I remember OTTOMH). Humans are in the 2014 PHB, so they are not a new option. They are changed.

Why does "not a change" require a public playtest? (It doesn't.)

Both 3e and 4e item prices were supposed to be based purely on "usefulness". They were not terribly succesful in that, but that is hardly the same as "utterly ignor[ing]" it.

I do not know who wrote that sidebar, but I can only assume they had not read the rest of the book when they did so. Even aside from the "new edition" question, it severely understates the extent and scope of the "revisions". And even if that was not the case, actions speak louder than words...

Other than my saying it in post #4? What does formal logic have to do with whether limiting the word "natural" to its broadest possible (and least useful) definition is required? EDIT: In a context of a discussion thread on an elfgame forum, which is decidedly informal and not always all that...

It is so. Or at least was until a few years ago, as noted above. EDIT: Not perfect consistancy in every possible nuance perhaps, but certainly close enough for government work.

What does that have to do with the price of fish? The OP's rant was not about things being immune to magical or non-magical effects, it was about immunity to mind-affecting effects (which is completely orthogonal to whether something is magical or not). Anyway yes, I think 3.P gives out...

I am using the same definition D&D the D&D publishers and fandom have always used. And which only became contraversial a few years ago (see below). BTW, "half an edition" is like "half pregnant" - ie, not a thing. Should have been, and was. Nobody tried to pretend 3.5 was anything other than a...

New core books. New supplements (Complete Divine replacing Defenders of the Faith for example). Definitely a new edition, scale of changes compared with 3e and 4e notwithstanding. And I note that you did not compare the scale with the 1 to 2e change, or B/X to BECMI.... Yes, Essentials...

This is your regularly scheduled reminder that Essentials was not a new edition. It was 4e. And therefore by definition did not have changes from itself. 3.5 OTOH, definitely was a new edition. So if 1D&D were not going to be a new edition (hint: it is) it would obviously be considerably less...

Actually, I think I have quizzed you about this before, so apologies for the repetition. IIRC, I was concerned about crits going straught to BHP being instant death (due to the difference in scale between regular HP and BHP), but in your experience the DR was enough to offset that.

From every edition of D&D since 2000 (except possibly 5e - I have only played it not run it). The XP value of the monster is what you get for overcoming the challenge of that monster - how you over come that challenge is irrelevant: Sure killing it is one way, but you can also fight in...

Are you really claiming that when you said... ...you actually meant only 1e? Because if so you need to work on your word choices. If you had actually been talking purely about 1e, I would not have said anything because it is not my area of expertise. But you made a claim about all editions of...

Presumably if you run out of them you die? Do you start losing them if you run out of normal hp, or by some other method?

Pretty much this. Short rests are 5 minutes or ten minutes (maybe 15 at a stretch). Anything longer than that is not a "short" rest, and probably does not happen at all. Interesting stuff. One of the things that I am debating with myself is whether to do something like this in my (perennially...