Search results

I was saying they weren't curated, just like the E-shop, hence sarcastic "seal of QUANTITY."

I have no idea what you are on about here. Companies get to say who plays in their sandbox. hat might suck, but it is true.

Maybe you need to reread my post?

DMs Guild definitely seems to operate under the "Offocial Seal of Quantity" paradigm.

That's the blood of all my PCs.

Does "furthest" matter here? The spell doesn't require that, just that you use the fastest method of movement. I suppose once could argue that since speed equals distance over time, and time is constant (6 seconds) you must go the direction that allows you to.move the farthest. But now we are...

Most of this is them protecting their IP and trying to sell D&D. I.thought you meant real hostility, like leveraging control over distribution channels or trying to trademark or patent things already in the public domain. Telling people they can't use your trademark without a license hardly...

Wait, I thought the argument was that cyberpunk was bigger than just one trope.

Give some examples of actively hostile to other games.

I would argue that is just future dystopia. That's a different genre (or maybe an umbrella genre that encompasses cyberpunk). 1984 is not cyberpunk, which is essentially what you are arguing.

This thread reminds me that WotC kept making noises about putting previous SRDs under CC, but has never actually made any movement in that direction. I would go so far as to suggest they were always lying and never intended to put the 3.0 or 3.5 SRD into CC.

I agree that the Dragonmarked Houses are akin to cyberpunk mega corps (I have used them that way myself). I vehemently disagree with categorizing Eberron as Steampunk. It is magitech and aetherpunk.

"Flee" can't force the target to go a specific direction. It has no control, only a compulsion. If the target has multiple avenues of equal "speed" they are free to choose. Trying to power up command is metagame, power munchkin nonsense and if my players demanded it, they would very quickly find...

Yeah,that debacle seemed to accelerate other folks plans more than create them.

Huh. I had mine for literal decades and the binding remained good.

I think Micah meant in the thread. No need to be snarky when someone just asks a question.

5.5 is not a different edition, nor did it change the rules of 3PP availability. Those are why Pathfinder was made and succeeded.

There's a middle ground: them actually looking for different paths and solutions.

You can run it however you want but you are simply adding details that aren't in the spell description. I will say that if players decided this is how they wanted it to work at the table, I would totally oblige them.

But WotC hasn't stopped publishing 5E material, so there can't be a Pathfinder for it.