Search results

This is one of my least favorite ideas in BECMI. For 9 levels you are an heavy-armored, mace-wielding, undead-turner, healing warrior-priest. Then you became a druid.

I got into AD&D in 1986, so UA was already available. I bought it even before the DMG and basically used almost all of it back then. Currently, I pick some stuff and drop other. Here are some examples: No comeliness (bad idea, worse implementation) No new subraces Cavaliers and barbarians...

Exactly, that was what I was talking about.

What's the matter with you people? I've never ever said anything like that! I was specifically talking about people like Pundit and his sort. I thought it was very clear.

And, BTW, I also like old-school Dark Sun, even though I played only a little in it.

Yes, reading what I wrote would also be great. Since I wasn't talking about anyone but a very specific category of people of which there are very few here since they always end up banned.

If we are talking about the same category of people, then facts don't really matter to them. Just always raising a stink and dog-whistling like mad.

You can only double-specialize with a melee weapon (excluding pole arms and two handed swords). Still the ROF with darts can get insane: 6/1 at 13th+ level!

Oh, it's easy. They will say that DS has been wokefied...

No, absolutely it wasn't my point. I was just talking about DM's Guild policy. About the rest, I agree with you.

I also don't think that they will change it. I was replying to the statement that there is a "need" for a 5e product in order to open up a setting. There is not. It's, as you say, a policy that they are free to continue or change as they see fit. I'm unclear about the rest of the answer: why do...

That has been WotC's policy, but they own the IP, they could open whatever they want on DM's Guild.

I can't find a layout credit on the DDB version. It there one in the printed copy? I don't have access to it at the moment.

Ah, I don't think they put those on Disney+ (at least in Italy). But it's all good, I would try not to read them in any case...

I wonder if we will get some kind of flashback on what happened on the Maginot. Morrow mentions a sabotage and we just got very brief flashes.

There is one which was kickstarted and, from what I've read in the updates, is coming out now. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/maestromedia/the-smurfs-roleplaying-game/posts P:S.: I haven't backed the campaign, so I don't know anything about the game itself.

Yes, the issue is there. As I wrote earlier, I added a sixth category (Traps & Mishaps) and I really don't have much of a problem when running AD&D, while enjoying the way it works. I agree though that it is easier to assign a category in the ref/fort/will paradigm and that the decisions will...

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that there actually is a paid sponsorship by WotC. Then what? What does it change? Why should we care?

They work fine for me, I've been using them for decades. Honestly, I I'm not too concerned if something is - in general - good game design. It just has to work at my table.

Must be the same insiders that talked years ago about Kathleen Kennedy imminent firing from Lucasfilm.