Search results

The rules might essentially be the same, but D&D is a brand, not a set of rules. Thus we have 5+ rule sets all with the same D&D name. You are not buying the D&D brand when you buy Level Up 5e or another “clone” nor are you directly giving any money to Hasbro. I admit validity to your argument...

Looking through much of this thread, I can see that many people don't understand the point. The only relevant arguments against the OP are that a) nobody is avoiding buying 5e due to their feelings about Hasbro, and b) supporting any kind of 5e supports the whole ecosystem of 5e, and therefore...

If $4 million+ is the best that MCDM ever does, that’s nothing to cry about.

Deleted

Love the artwork attached to this article.

While I appreciate the gist of the article for D&D, I'm not sure I agree. Star Wars did not revert to a multiverse; Disney just decided that the Legends novels weren't canon anymore. And Middle Earth doesn't have a multiverse as far as I know. Since those are two of the largest franchises, I...

I think they need to come out with a basic version of the game. I guess that's what the starter sets are for, but I'd like to see a dedicated rulebook for beginners. I fear this new version, with its extra feat at 1st level and the various weapon properties, will turn off new gamers with the...

I hate the name, but I guess you can’t judge a book by its title.

I think many people, myself included, were hoping for a more meaty setting book. Technically, 96 pages of setting are 50% more than what we got for Spelljammer, but if you compare it to something like Eberron, which is 320 pages, it's still meager. Even if you remove the bestiary and the...

I think it’s more the term “half” because of its real world equivalent. To call someone “half-Black,” for example, assumes whiteness as given. At least, that’s my understanding.

LOL I must eat my words. It is exactly Tony DiTerlizzi artwork!

The artwork for Planescape at least looks reminiscent of the original artwork, if not exactly Tony DiTerlizzi.

WotC's stance on the OGL 1.0a is to revoke it. The community's stance that the OGL 1.0a should not (and cannot) be revoked. They know this. We know this. This survey feels like a waste of time.

The effects of this license on 3rd party publishers seems complicated, definitely to be examined by lawyers. Perhaps how this OGL would actually play out in the community is unknown. I would approach this with some trepidation if I were a publisher.

I’m not sure you need it. Nobody can stop you from making a chart with 20 levels and descriptions of powers.

My arcanist casts magic arrow at the bearowl.

I’ve had to step away from YouTube a bit. Some of the claims by well known YouTubers are starting to sound more dubious, and I think they’re distracting from the main issue, the attempted deauthorization of OGL 1.0. If Wizards decides to forget that “strategy” and shows some good faith by...

Us: We’re angry you’re dropping the OGL 1.0a that you promised would last forever. 1st apology: We’re sorry that you are choosing to be upset by this. 2nd apology: Take this survey and tell us how you really feel. 3rd (potential) apology: we heard you and we’ve changed whispers very little.

More smokescreens. They know what we want. They know we know they know. They don’t need a survey.

The deauthorization of 1.0a isn’t “one” of the major concerns, it is THE major concern. If they weren’t trying to do that, everyone would have laughed at their ridiculous “OGL” and moved on and created their games as they wished. By not addressing that issue, the rest is smokescreens. Grade: F