Search results

I'd be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this if it wasn't for the amount of time that had passed between the failure of the 4e VTT and the likely point where they decided to buy in to the idea of a new VTT. There had probably been so much turnover in that time period that...

How many senior D&D people (meaning people who work on the actual game itself) who were still working on D&D have actually been laid off here? None that I've seen. I think you're kind of jumping to conclusions here.

Personally, not really. I've long since stopped having any illusions about Hasbro being the good guys, so them continuing to do stuff like this periodically won't really move the needle for me. D&D will continue, and assuming the 2024 products are as advertised I'll happily buy them, just like I...

My understanding is they work well as a base. It's not like bookscan is making up sales that didn't happen, it's just that they miss a lot of them because many outlets that sell books (including many bookstores!) don't report their sales to bookscan.

It's not just Riggs (or D&D adjacent books/authors) who sees this sort of thing. It's super common for bookscan numbers to be pretty wildly off from actual sales, and the amount they are off varies a lot from book to book and author to author.

I cannot imagine any world where ToV ends up being more conservative in its changes than the 2024 5e rules. They'd have to scrap large swaths of what's in the Alpha if that was really the goal (changes to what levels subclass abilities kick in at and the entire Talents section, at the very...

Heaven forbid a for-profit business attempt to make money. Also, while yes, they are clearly trying to do something big for the anniversary they’re also taking advantage of the fact that something big is happening to make changes they normally couldn’t do. There are absolutely things worth...

Okay, so I’ve just skimmed through like five pages of stuff, and I’m not going to go back and reply to precisely the parts of the conversation I’m replying to, but regarding the whole “it takes 70% approval to make a change, and there are certainly things in the game already that wouldn’t make...

The thing about not having short rests be guaranteed is that it has a hugely different impact on different character classes. I’d be totally fine with short rests being a “maybe you get them maybe you don’t” sort of thing if every class cared about them the same amount. Then how much you care...

It’s not insane for the party to do it, because the players know what the meta game of D&D 5e looks like. It’s insane for the characters to do it, because they don’t have that sort of knowledge and should be like “umm, we’re totally going to get eaten by some giant monster if we just hang around...

Absolutely love what I'm seeing. The Warlock changes are an enormous improvement IMO, and I really like what they've done with the martial classes and Weapon Mastery. Very cool stuff.

Literally came here to make this joke. Seriously, I don’t have any idea how you can look at the OneD&D playtest docs and the Black Flag playtest doc and conclude anything other than both of these are shooting for a pretty similar level of backwards compatibility. There just isn’t that much of a...

The SRD is licensed under the OGL. The draft says parts of the SRD (the core rules) will be covered by a CC license and everything else (classes, races, spells, monsters basically) will be under a new OGL (1.2) which among other things gives WotC full control over interpretation of the morality...

I am not close to fine with the OGL 1.2 as it stands in that document. I simply don't trust WotC not to use the morality clause as a weapon.

If it's got a morality clause associated with it and they're the ones who decides what meets the morality requirements it's not open content.

It's not just the names they're leaving out though, it's literally the rules for the classes. Like, no class progression chart, no levels that abilities show up, etc. You don't have enough info to even make a Subclass.

I think people need to actually look at what they're talking about putting under the Creative Commons license. It doesn't include Races, Character Classes, Spells, or Monsters. It includes the core game rules, but nothing else. This is enormously less than is actually in the SRD today.

FWIW, keep in mind that the stuff they want to share under creative commons doesn't include classes, monsters, or spells. That's a pretty limited set of stuff.

If you were going to make a movie where the details like that mattered you'd also need to actually call it D&D, which you can't under the OGL. Any movie that is okay with winking at the audience and saying "Based on the 5th edition of the World's Most Popular Roleplaying Game" or whatever can...

Someone really needs to explain to me what the OGL 1.0a has to do with making a movie. They put a lot of Attack Rolls and Skill Checks in movies these days? Are SRDs full of game rules suddenly relevant to the plot structure of feature films? Even WotC and TSR didn't bat an eye when they wanted...