Search results

If you would prefer to run their adventure and not your own.

I have bought every 5e book up until recently. The quality has dropped so much that I have quit buying them. That is saying a lot. I am a hardcore fan and have been since 1e. I can afford every book. My opinion was influenced heavily by the terrible Spelljammer set. I am not their target...

Do these content creators work for Wizards? I am a little confused? If they do, their content is more than a little biased.

Guessing it will probably be subscription and not micro transactions. Subscription is the golden goose of Silicon Valley and Microsoft. We all know current management's history. If I was a betting man, a combination of both. I am guessing the mini was labeled painted due to the fact that it is...

I am not a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I believe that their IP is covered under a different license. Guessing, but educated guessing. They are a corporation motivated by profit. They will give away the least amount that they have to try and save this situation.

1) Why do they need a morality clause if their IP isn't included in an OGL? 2) Do you really believe that they will hamstring themselves with this?

Yeah I umm ran a couple sessions of that when It first came out, at the request of mt group. It was umm, great! Yeah

Amazon and Disney would eat them as a snack, so I doubt it.

From their hiring practices it's fairly obvious what direction they are planning on going.

An OGL doesn't affect this and wouldn't going forward. I am not a lawyer, well perhaps a rules lawyer, but I am pretty sure you can't keep game companies or movie producers from using open content like myths and fairy tales for instance. You definitely can't keep folks from rolling a d20 for a...

Then why don't they stick with the current license?

We can hope Disney/Marvel will run with it, man. I am huge SW fan but not so much a fan of the weirdly complicated FFG system.

Tolkien is rather low magic: https://freeleaguepublishing.com/en/store/?product_id=7820499124482 Also has excellent exploration rules. If you preferred Cubile 7's exploration rules: http://kck.st/3RZUHPz The point being that other companies have done this well already. Wizards doesn't need...

I noticed that also, but decided that Study is used to study a trap, not find/notice it.

You can have one of my cats, really I am trying to get rid of those dudes. You could call him Guenhwyvar. More seriously, there are no pet classes in the play test yet, who knows how that will pan out? It would it appear that it will be pretty easy to swap subclasses between classes. I played...

Or you could just be a Rogue with a background that gives you survival. You now have a "Ranger" without spell casting.

I misspoke, two different words and meanings to represent the same thing in game terms. So why not use one term? This is why I theorized that that could change in a future class that we have yet to see or to be backwards compatible? Maybe I am just reading too much into this, lol.

You could be correct but using two terms for the same thing is kind of confusing. It does make it more backwards compatible 2014 book however.

So Rangers get the same number of spell slots as spell prepared? That keeps it simple. Taking a guess that Wizards will get more spells prepared than spell slots giving them greater flexibility. Guess they will get more slots than Rangers.

My savored enemy is a large meat lovers pizza, much better than play test version of Favored Enemy.