Search results

I think the confusion might be: "I use the Attack action and use one of these maneuvers, which includes a melee weapon attack. Eldritch Scythe lets me replace a melee weapon attack with an Eldritch Scythe attack, so I do that, which makes it so the maneuver now is using a melee spell attack even...

The Dread Knight archetype in GPG seems to provide a lot of benefit for a melee lock with the introduction of martial maneuvers. The enhanced Find Steed they get at 6th level can help a bit with the glass part of the glass cannon.

I don't think the jury trial waiver is the part that people are mostly injecting to buy the waiver of any right to class or joint actions. Yeah, it may be "standard", but it also tilts the balance even further towards Hasbro.

Reasons they'd probably say no: It's expensive to do so. It's not something they already do or similar to something they already do. Why would they agree? Now, if you just made the clause "Anyone who is a member of a recognized hate group by the SPLC is not allowed to publish under this...

That's why I'm fine with WOTC making the initial decision, but as-is the morality clause means WOTC can terminate any license for any reason at any time. Just because they put that bit under a heading labeled 'Hateful content' doesn't mean it's restricted to being about WOTC's values or hateful...

I don't think you could get the SPLC to agree to do so, and you certainly shouldn't put that in the contract (especially not without their approval). I don't like putting specific third party organizations into the contract for the simple reason that those organizations can change or go away...

Sure. Sections 6(f) combined with 7(b)(i) Because WOTC retains sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful and you agree not to contest any such determination with any legal action and WOTC retains the right to immediately terminate a license if they deem you have engaged in...

Define terms like 'harmful', 'hateful', etc. Remove the "you cannot appeal any of our decisions" clause and add in a clause about how if you appeal and win WOTC will pay all legal fees and if you appeal and fail you will pay all legal fees. Potentially also include a standard arbitration clause...

No, that's absolutely something they are making up. The intent of that clause (as explained by the author) was to distinguish authorized OGLs versus draft copies that were never released. There is no method for deauthorization in the OGL, and thus there is no way to deauthorize them.

I want to be clear here: As written, WOTC is trying to prevent Level Up and Pathfinder from publishing anything. WOTC explicitly has stated that their goal with this change is to prevent competitors, and since WOTC is giving themselves unchecked veto authority over any products released, and...

How? As written, it means the license gives effectively no protection over anything. With this license, WOTC can revoke it at any time for any reason to prevent you from publishing or continuing to sell any product you make.

I'm curious - did you notice the "WOTC can revoke this license at any time for any reason and you give up your right to object in any way" language? This, as written, seems worse than the leaked OGLv1.1 to me.

The "morality clause" needs a third-party arbitration clause and general "harmful" content needs to either be defined or removed ('harmful to our profits!' is still harmful).

They can claim as such as much as they want, but the fact is that their argument that the OGL can be revoked at will and it's good and ethical and righteous to do so is horseshit. The OGL was understood at the time to be non-revokable, and it uses the same language as GPLv2. WOTC has no special...

And to be clear, the OGL includes consideration (you agree not to exercise certain rights you otherwise would have had).

Everything I've heard about that podcast indicates that they didn't know what they were talking about in regards to legalities or ethics.

The clause is phrased such that they can use it to veto any content for any reason and you explicitly give up any rights to have anyone other than WOTC review that decision. If the clause were actually limited to "hate speech" or to promote inclusivity or something in any way that was...

Ahah, I missed that the vehicle was designed to ram things (and that the ramming rules allowed you to do that as part of the bonus action to pilot the vehicle). I knew we were missing something! That also gives me a guide as to how to add a built in weapon (we are running a modified Descent into...

I'm about to start my first A5E campaign, and one of my players was planning to play a Machinist Artificer. After making our characters during Session 0, he began looking deeper into the Artificer mechanics and noticed that, unlike the O5E version of the Artificer, there doesn't seem to be...

Doesn't sound like the proposed update includes making the new OGL include the sub licensing provisions of the original OGL. Those are some of the provisions I find most important, as they allow the entire system to be built up on by multiple creators working with each other's content.