Search results

Uh... I said "non-magical treasure," i.e. gold/gems/jewelry. I mean, you can run a game without magic items, but that's not the topic of the thread.

Unlike prior editions, you can actually run a full campaign without non-magical treasure. However, there's always ways to spend gold. The two most common are Potions of Healing and expensive spell components. Potions of Healing can allow you to full heal after a combat without spending precious...

I'm going with no, because it's not being marketed as such. The playtest shows it's clearly based on the 5E chassis, so at best it's a half edition. You could play 3.5 with 3E stuff... with a bit of difficulty, which I expect to be the same with the Revised Edition.

Capturing magic users can be tricky, but hiring mercenary adventurers is a good way of doing it (plus an adventure trope). Once defeated, the easiest way to keep them is to blindfold and gag them, with hands bound. This takes away V, S, and M components, plus very few spells can be used without...

2E AD&D was largely just a revision of 1E AD&D. 3.5E was a revision of 3E. 1D&D is going to be a revision of 5E. Yes, they might be considered a "new edition," but it's going to be using the same 5E chassis (at least according to both what WotC has said and the playtest has shown).

Bad news for the tiny moon then. 1D&D is obviously going to be using the 5E chassis, and barring a complete collapse of the system, it's extremely unlikely they're going to put out another edition in less than 6 years. How so? While there's a lot of changes (mostly for the better), the core...

Just like D&D Next, 1D&D is a placeholder name. It's probably going to be something like Revised Edition (i.e. 5E revised) or Anniversary Edition in the final version. If they wanted to keep the 3X method, they could refer to it as 5.5E but I don't think that will be the case.

Because that would make sense...

Because people are slowly realizing that it's not 6E, but a continuation of 5E. The fact that WotC has been completely upfront about this fact seems to confuse some people, so they continue to push for ideas that are incompatible with the existing 5E chassis. When these ideas show 0 chance of...

This is similar to my own opinion that items, weapons, and armor need a technology level, which helps explain why some are just better/worse than others. Crappy weapons like clubs and bottom tier armors could be found in the most primitive cultures, but almost nobody would use them outside of...

Prone technically isn't removed when you're off the ground, since becoming prone causes a flying creature to fall, although the DM may rule otherwise based on the specifics. For example, a humanoid grappling a prone humanoid won't keep them prone, while a huge dragon picking them up in their...

WotC is offering an additional option to DMs, not players. The DM always have the final say. This should cause no more conflict than the existence of Tashas or Xanthars.

This tweet is categorically incorrect. Greyhawk has never had firearms, as gunpowder doesn't work there. The lone exception to this is the "6 shooters" belonging to Myrlund, but those are actually wands.

Not really. DMs are simply going to have to decide what, if anything, they will allow from 5E. There will be imbalance, just like there were imbalances between characters for 1E & 2E AD&D. While it's not ideal for people to have mixed groups, it's at least possible, unlike any other two...

To make fighting a dragon unique, you really need to use the rules for climbing onto a bigger creature from the DMG. A real dragon is going to stay in the air, breathing down on the party and occasionally grabbing a PC to drop from a height. Allowing melee PCs to try and climb on top of the...

Sorry to hear you got sick, and hope you're feeling better. Thanks for the convention report!

I like dungeons, both as a player and a DM, for largely the same reason: focus. Everything for the adventure is usually pretty clearly defined in a dungeon setting. The bad guys and goal are likely present, allowing the players to focus on resolving the immediate challenges in front of them...

Only if the DM permits it. In 5E the DM must be using the optional rule of skills with other abilities, and presumably this will continue with 1D&D. The idea of using Str for Intimidation is usually based off a misunderstanding of Intimidation. It's not about the ability to hurt the target...

Battlemage: focus on abjuration and evocation magic, priority on combat. Beguiler: focus on enchantment and illusions, priority on control. Necromancer: classic staple. Conjurer: focus on conjuration and transmutation, with priority on buffs.

Shoot, I forgot that one!!!