Search results

The rogue in general looks fantastic.

It seems like there should be some (large) category between “hit” and “flop,” though I’d agree it isn’t doing franchise numbers in a modern context. Just another reason the modern context sucks. I’m just glad they made a good movie.

Yeah, where's that meme about what the DM imagines the campaign will be and what the players turn it into. :LOL:

You want a “true D&D movie” but you want it to be “high brow”? That’s certainly a take.

Oh, I agree. Gotta be an error.

The way it's written, you have a 25% chance of recalling a spell, regardless of spell level.

Thoughts: 1) People who have stated repeatedly they have no interest in 1D&D jumping in to argue incessantly about whether it's a new edition feels like threadcrapping. 2) New wildshape approach is good. Standardize the mechanics, free the fluff. Am I reading this correctly that you can speak...

There are no changes they could make to the license language that would prevent them from trying again next year. Instead of words, Wizards has taken an action that creates a powerful disincentive (combined with the PR bruises the company will wear for a while) to make another attempt next year...

I totally understood ORC as a rallying flag. I totally don't get how people are convinced that a nonexistent license, with undetermined content licensed under it, is the solution for "real open gaming." I think it would be pretty great if publishers big and small tossed the bespoke licenses in...

I've said this before, but I think this does a disservice to Level Up. It's not just a "patched up" version of 5e. From what we've seen in the playtest, 1D&D is a lot closer to vanilla 5e than Level Up is. I'd actually really like to see Wizards make a bigger change with 1D&D and for someone...

I mean, no, that’s not worth a whole lot IMO. If it’s not actually true under the common law of contracts, what’s the point in someone currently at WotC making such a statement? On the other hand, they’ve created a truly irrevocable practical disincentive to ever bother withdrawing their offer...

Some of the lawyers have suggested it’s not actually that easy to create a standing offer that can never be withdrawn. That being the case, I honestly don’t know what could possibly say “We’re leaving the OGL alone” more forcefully than releasing 5.1 under a CC license. Everyone’s risk...

No, it doesn't mean that.

There's no share-alike provision in this CC license. It's still a huge win to get D&D in the Creative Commons.

I'm sorry, the legal "demand" was a joke. The letter was a joke. Charitably, perhaps it was simply intended to draw attention from fans.

That's who they are. This was their tweet a day before they received the leak. While I share their perspective and biases for the most part, I do wish the information had been leaked to a more objective news source. I wish we had gotten some real investigative journalism, rather than only...

I'm sorry, this is three weeks old and it's a joke. The "demand" was for a more "definite statement from Wizards." :rolleyes: I guess Wizards has delivered now and are safe, at the moment, from further legal action.

This all sounds rather plausible. The only piece I was contesting was the idea that some kind of more radical design incompatibility was required to wall out other VTTs.

Yeah, this is more or less what I was expecting. I don't know if DDB can "break" #2 on their end, but in any case, if you have to purchase the content on DDB, Wizards is probably just fine with that. It seems to be their objective, in fact. Maybe they start charging extra for data exporting...

Could you elaborate on "new derivative works"? Wouldn't this include any files, modules or applications to "kludge compatibility" with 1D&D? It seems obvious on its face that this kind of thing would have to be "new," since 1D&D doesn't yet exist. I'm not sure how much work "others" is doing...