D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Maxperson]

How do they know they're afflicted? They need to know before they can choose to resist or embrace.

The writing you quoted actually tells us, and then proceeds to contradict itself.

"However, when the full moon rises, the curse becomes too strong to resist, transforming the individual into its beast form-or into a horrible hybrid form that combines animal and humanoid traits. When the moon wanes, the beast within can be controlled once again."

That tells us pretty clearly that you can feel it the entire time, but can resist/control it outside of the full moon. If you choose not to resist, you become the alignment of the werecreature while in humanoid form as well.

Then we also have.

"Especially if the cursed creature is unaware of its condition..."

That pretty clearly tells us that the creature might not know, despite resisting and controlling the curse outside of the full moon.

What about changing before the full moon?

It says that they can once they embrace the curse.

"Some individuals see little point in fighting the curse and accept what they are. With time and experience, they learn to master their shapechanging ability and can assume beast form or hybrid form at will."

Can they resist it before then when the moon is full, or is it just the full moon?

It says that they do, but also might be unaware of the curse that they are resisting, whatever that looks like.

How many days is that?

One or three, depending on which school you ascribe to. But yeah, new DMs might not know that. It's pretty easy for them to rule, though. One or three are both good answers, and they'll say one of those.

 

[Andvari]

I wonder if lycanthropes have a harder time of it on Krynn, given that it has three moons.

 

[Maxperson]

Obviously YMMV, but for me I had less than two pages of house-rules for 1E or 2E despite playing them for 25 years, none at all for B/X or BECMI.

I have over 150 for the full 5E Mod house-rules I currently have.

I'm with @Mannahnin on this one. 1e was a weird dichotomy with rules. On the one hand you had rules portions like grappling and weapons, where everything was spelled out in more detail and complication than you needed. On the other hand you had areas like skills where there was practically nothing given. The DM had to make pretty much the whole skills portion of the game up.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I wonder if lycanthropes have a harder time of it on Krynn, given that it has three moons.

It's the dark moon you have to watch out for. Solinari and Lunitari, you can see and prepare for.

 

[Oofta]

I wonder if lycanthropes have a harder time of it on Krynn, given that it has three moons.

Shh! We're not supposed to acknowledge that different worlds with entirely different continents may not have our moon.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

CR.

Yes?

You know, there is a level in between the two extremes you describe. A little more guidance in some parts of the game would be nice. I like tables and charts.

Okay. Can you explain how the game having some areas that need improving means that the game isn’t complete?

Who is doing that, and where?

No one, anywhere, of course. It’s just a rhetorical trick with no merit.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I wonder if lycanthropes have a harder time of it on Krynn, given that it has three moons.

They probably pick a moon based on alignment or something.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, that would be the "Ghoul Surprise" moment. The time when they were live-streaming a game and had an encounter that was supposed to be relatively low difficulty, and were shocked "live" by it actually being extremely tough.

That was the moment, yeah.

It came quite late during the public playtest, as I recall--not super long before the final packet? Correct me if I'm wrong on that. The point wasn't whether or not they fixed it. It was that they were caught with their designer pants down, "on camera" as it were, in something that was supposed to go well and be a display of their work. That that could happen at all is an indication that they didn't really understand the game they'd designed. That it could happen in such a public-facing way is worse; it means they didn't bother testing their intended display encounter.

I disagree very much. Finding such things is the point of playtesting. Noticing a bug live and then fixing it is an example of the process working correctly. Not to mention the fact that it was still the open playtesting phase, which they had always been extremely clear was meant for dialing in the feel, not for figuring out mathematical balance, which was to happen during the private playtesting phase.

 

[Umbran]

It says that they do, but also might be unaware of the curse that they are resisting, whatever that looks like.

How is this hard?

The person has dark and violent feelings and urges that they don't understand. These can be pushed aside, except under a full moon.

 

[TwoSix]

I think a central problem around "completeness" as a term is that it's not synonymous with "playable", as some people are supposing. "Completeness" and complexity are opposed to each other; the more rules you add to a game, the more incomplete it becomes.

Like, this example:
1) There is a player and a DM.
2) The player makes a fictional persona, i.e. a character. The DM explains what is happening to the character, a scene.
3) The player explains what the character is going to attempt, and the result if they succeed. The players then flips a coin.
4) If heads, the player's character succeeds at their attempt and the intended result in realized. The DM then presents a new scene.
5) If tails, the player's character's attempt fails and the DM narrates the consequence of the failure and then presents a new scene.

That is a complete game. Any character or setting is playable, and any possible action has a system-defined method of resolution. But, I very much doubt anyone wants to play that complete game over the relative incompleteness of 5e; the reasons for that preference are probably determined by your motivations for gaming.