E6 SRD - community project

[Gilladian]

My personal preference on the monster spells is to keep them spells, but to call them monstrous spells and list them in their own section.

In this way, we keep inconsistencies at their lowest possible level, give DMs who WANT to allow PCs to "discover" these spells a way to do so, and minimize OUR work load.

Special abilities that you've done, I'm fine with... I think you've done a good job adding them to the glossary and that's super.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Well, that's at least a three people who've swung toward "monstrous spells", and I agree. (Such a section also provides a natural place for a GM to drop in any spell he doesn't want the PCs to get their hands on.)

So I'll go ahead and rip out this "special abilities" version shortly, and replace it with a monstrous spells list. However I'll keep this version around so we can revert back to it later if need be.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

file: Monsters Intro - A

file: Monsters Intro - A

status: awaiting proofread

comment:
cut -
aboleth

modified -
acherai (ref to insanity changed to lesser confusion)
archons (updated subtype overview to match update in Types file)
avoral (fear, trueseeing are now 'special abilities')

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

file: Monsters B-C

file: Monsters B-C

status: awaiting proofread

comment:

cut -
basilisk, greater abyssal
barghest

modified -
blink dog (dimension door now a standalone special ability)

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Today I realized that official errata can make a significant difference in sorting out monsters' special abilities. So I'm going to incorporate official errata as I update these monster files (as well as the "special abilities" files) because that can change a given entry in ways that clarify or simplify things a bit.

I believe the monster files just uploaded above are ok now, but they'll definitely need a second look later on to verify.

 

[ideasmith]

A thought on 'monstrous spells', if we end up going that route. They will probably need levels, but will certainly not need any class identified. Therefore, fear would be Level: 4, while greater teleport would be Level: 7.

 

[ideasmith]

Today I realized that official errata can make a significant difference in sorting out monsters' special abilities. So I'm going to incorporate official errata as I update these monster files (as well as the "special abilities" files) because that can change a given entry in ways that clarify or simplify things a bit.

I believe the monster files just uploaded above are ok now, but they'll definitely need a second look later on to verify.

Is the official errata Open Game Content? I was under the impression that it is not.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

A thought on 'monstrous spells', if we end up going that route. They will probably need levels, but will certainly not need any class identified. Therefore, fear would be Level: 4, while greater teleport would be Level: 7.

My thoughts exactly. I'm wondering if the arcane/divine distinction needs to be preserved, though (eg, "Level: Arcane 4" vs just "Level 4"). My sense is that that's not necessary, but I simply don't know if it matters or not. Thoughts? (BTW, I started a thread on this this yesterday.)

Is the official errata Open Game Content? I was under the impression that it is not.

Ugh, I hadn't thought about that. I know d20srd.org incorporates errata and claims to be entirely OGC, but perhaps it's in error. I'll dig around to see if I can resolve this. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[ideasmith]

My thoughts exactly. I'm wondering if the arcane/divine distinction needs to be preserved, though (eg, "Level: Arcane 4" vs just "Level 4"). My sense is that that's not necessary, but I simply don't know if it matters or not. Thoughts?

Or maybe 'Level: Arc 4', with 'Level Dvn 4' used for divine. Although I am pretty sure the distinction doesn't apply to spell-like abilities, and we can go with 'Level: Mns 4'.

(BTW, I started a thread on this this yesterday.)

Which I saw and somehow didn't connect with E6.

Ugh, I hadn't thought about that. I know d20srd.org incorporates errata and claims to be entirely OGC, but perhaps it's in error. I'll dig around to see if I can resolve this. Thanks for the heads up.

What appears to be the official location of the official errata can be found at:

Official D&D Updates

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Or maybe 'Level: Arc 4', with 'Level Dvn 4' used for divine. Although I am pretty sure the distinction doesn't apply to spell-like abilities, and we can go with 'Level: Mns 4'.

Yeah, I'm also under the impression it doesn't matter. It turns out that there are several Sp abilities in the monsters section that don't reference any spell at all, but have no mention of arcane or divine nature. I think it's safe to assume they're type-less; that seems to be the consensus in the other thread, as well.

What appears to be the official location of the official errata can be found at:
Official D&D Updates

That's what I'm working from, as a matter of fact. What I can't determine is if the corrections to SRD ogc is still ogc. My gut tells me it's not an issue because they're "corrections"... but I've been looking into this to try to find a definitive answer.

edit: WotC's OGL FAQ asks/answers the question:

Q: What is "Open Game Content"?​

A: Open Game Content is any material that is distributed using the Open Game License clearly identified by the publisher as Open Game Content. Furthermore, any material that is derived from Open Game Content automatically becomes Open Game Content as well.​

(emphasis mine). I don't know if that answers the question, but it seems on the right track.
​