Don't believe you can, or else I'd be on it already . Wizards held on to a lot of really cool properties. Rightfully, I might add, but it's still sad when you've got a great idea for a product and realize a key piece is missing cause it's not covered.
You can extend the definition by adding origin as long as you don't redefine it. I would create a sub-race that has branched of the original
You mean redefine as in, you can't make dwarves like elves? What is the original definition of a dwarf?
Please note that this only applies if you sign the GSL. We don't want to create the impression that WotC actually owns a word...WotC owns the rights to the Word Feywild.
I think they were called "yuan-ti", but the reason people stayed away from that word was that it was defined as PI and the OGL forbade you to use PI of someone else.Unless I am incorrect, it's just like how certain monsters were treated in 3e; "Yaun-Ti" were not in the SRD because WotC owned the rights to them. They did not own rights to the idea of cult-like, sinister snake people. Ergo why many 3rd Party Products had their own cult-like, sinister snake people by a different name.
You can make whatever you like as long as the original definitions remain valid -in other words: as long as the original definitions do not become invalid. Its first order logic.
Yes; the assumption being if you sign the GSL, then you can't use WotC's intellectual property (like Feywild), just like with the OGL, WotC had the IP for Yuan-ti.Bottom line - you can't own a word. Not even a made-up one. But you can agree to not using it through a license such as OGL or GSL.
What IS the original definition? Whatever is in the 4e core books? For example, in the 4e core books, dwarves are said to be (in a general manner) short and strong and have +1 to whatever abilities.
So I can say that dwarves are long and thin and like to play tennis? But, I cannot say that the definition of dwarves that WoTC gives is invalid. Right?
"4 new classes"From WotC's boards, posted yesterday night (GMT)