Recent content by abazaba

I get that, but I also get why you state that explicitly. Thanks, that corresponds with how I understand things to be. Yeah, the whole DM's Guild thing seems to be a whole thing unto it's own. I think I also heard that when you publish on DM's Guild, you cannot publish anywhere else...

Thanks for the response. But, do I understand correctly that you literally cannot use any of WotC's IP in your SRD-based content ? So for example, you cannot use the 'Forgotten Realms' setting (or anything in it), and you would have to make it either 'setting-agnostic' or create your own setting ?

Now that I have seen the question of trademarked/copyrighted IP mentioned here quite a few times, I have a question : What if I chose to use the 5.2 SRD to create new IP, would that make it my IP, or WotC's IP ? For example, if I chose to use the 5.2 SRD to publish new material, but included an...

I'm not sure, but I vaguely seem to recall Jeremy Crawford stating that he definitely considered it a new edition, as he personally had to rewrite all the statblocks in the monster manual. But I may be mistaken.

Perhaps you are correct. I do get the impression that the claim was that previous adventures remained compatible with the new rules. But now they announce a 'conversion guide'. It's just getting confusing at this point. Perhaps we will have to wait and see what this conversion guide will...

Apparently, you came here to have an argument. ;)

Some of the parts were it matters to me and makes a difference are : How we refer to the 'not-new-edition': WotC seems to want to call it the '2024 revision of 5e' (if I even got that right), which leads to naming things like 'the 2014 revision of 5e', and 'the 2024 revision of 5e', which...

Perhaps I got it all wrong here (I've been known to be wrong before) but didn't WotC clearly market 3.5 as a 'new edition' ? By the way, I'm not saying they shouldn't release a 'conversion guide', I actually think that it is a good idea and will definitely help people. I just think they should...

Well that was sort of the point that I was trying to make (although perhaps I chose my words poorly): if it wasn't a new edition, there would be no need for any translation, now would there ? Oh, well, nevermind.

Ah, I see. A 'conversion guide', because the 2024 ruleset isn't a 'new edition'. Got it.

True. Basically amounting to providing 'an email address' to them. Why does WotC quote/unquote 'need' my physical address, phone number, and 'payment' info to provide me a free product ? Yes, like I said before, I get why they do it (spoiler alert: more ways of advertising/selling their products...

It may be free, but they do still require you to provide your personal info (full name, physical address, phone number, etc.) to get access to it, which you may not have provided (yet) if you only have a (free) DNDBeyond account without having an (active) subscription. I get why they do it, but...

Thanks for the reply. I am talking about the field in the lowermost left corner of the first page of the sheet, which I encircled with red in the supplied screenshot.

Although I fully realize I'm pretty late with this note (and you might not even be following this thread anymore), but: When I look at the 'tools' section of the WotC default sheet with shrinking fields you made (on the bottom left corner of the first page), it appears there is enough room for...