03:42:30 PM Jan 12th 2016
I propose changing the page image to one of the covers of the original, 1st Edition module. That is what people think of when they talk about the Tomb of Horrors, not the neutered v3.5 revision or the 4th edition "super adventure" that strays even further from the original concept.
08:26:26 PM Jan 25th 2011
Just want to say I laughed long and hard when I saw the page image.
11:00:19 AM Sep 20th 2010
Well, the 4th edition version is out now. Should this topic get updated to include the 4e version's details (for example, it's an explicit sequel to the original Tomb of Horrors and to Return to the Tomb of Horrors, and revolves around the party investigating four seperate Tombs — one in the Feywild, the next in the Shadowfell, then the abandoned original, and finally one in the Astral Sea where Acerak is building himself a golem body of astral shards and dead god's flesh), or, as an explicit sequel with a considerably different plot/outline, should it have its own page created?
02:56:32 AM Jun 23rd 2010
I'm not one to start an edit war, so I won't just put the YMMV back, but the description of the 3.5 version is needlessly elitist and antagonistic. It immediately makes one wonder if the writer has seen the 4e version yet ("Oh no, your armor's turned pink! -2 to all checks :("). I had pointed out the reason for the change was mentioned in the story and was specifically so all the anti-undead tricks a party would bring would immediately be rendered useless. Plus, from what I recall, the CR is independent of the fact it has those soul trapping gems for eyes still. Basically, what I'm saying is the main description's mention of the 3.5 version of the Tomb of Horrors reads like it was written by an angry /tg/ poster, not a passably civilized Troper. As is a lot of the mentions of the 3.5 version. And given the previews we've seen of the 4e version, it'll be even worse when that comes out.