Search results

true that would be more akin to being upset about a feat or spell, not a whole class

I am not saying it is widely criticized, just that it got more mixed results none of which have anything to do with the playtest. I agree that it mostly gets praise for the stuff WotC never asked for feedback on…

maybe, but the amount of system people want is different, so a system that goes beyond that for the sake of ‘more sandboxiness’ will not be better for everyone, not even a better sandbox

which is not what I was arguing for…

the DMG and MM are generally seen as improvements, the PHB gets some mixed results on that. The PHB got a long playtest while the others did not. I have been critical of the playtest approach for a while and I cannot help but wonder if there is a correlation

and they all happened because sales had evaporated

I did not realize this was in doubt

no it did not, you just cut it off too early the factor here is faster and the context is better for sandboxes, not better at everything. How would that even work, faster at sandboxes obviously does not make you better at everything, heck, as you may have noticed people do not even agree that...

at sandboxes, not inherently, just like the post you were replying to

are you sure about that?

the jury on that is very much still out, and I do not see the playtest as having made much of a difference with respect to improving the game either, the approach is too muddled to be much better than a coin toss. The one thing it does is identify hugely unpopular options, in case any were...

you have a very different take of the playtest than me, I do not see it as having helped the game improve

they should, they can always release a 5.5 version too

by stay the same I mean more 'the Dm can adjust as needed' rather than 'the DM can use as is'. There is a reason why I put monster manuals next on the list of things to update, but as more optional. ;)

I'd say update your classes and subclasses, but anything else can stay the same. Updated monster books are nice to have but less essential. Adventures and settings can stay the same, some will use the opportunity anyway

yes it does, it explained how open is used, and we can use the same principle for licenses not used in the article. More open = less restrictive, given that, is the OGL more or less open than CC-BY? There is only one correct answer given the metric. I find it funny that you claim we cannot say...

I cited two articles, maybe that gives you an idea about how it generally is used. I could find many more if I wanted to… Given that you cited exactly zero, I’ll take mine over yours.

I can compare them by weight, by color, by nutrition, we just need to agree on what the metric is no, it is open content either way, but the licensee cannot be the licensor of content they do not own. That is true under the OGL as well, regardless of what gets carved out as IP I did not forget...

there is no contradiction, a license with less restrictions on the material licensed under it / the licensees is more open, that is the definition of ‘open’. That a more restrictive license can force the licensee to release their content under that more restrictive license does not change that...

they are not redefining it under CC-BY, they either release it, or they don’t. If anything it is the OGL that defines anything it wants as IP so just like the CC-BY then… what happened to your ‘they have to open their content’ idea?