no, that would be pretty nonsensical... I am saying that something like A5e with a cohesive vision can change the classes more (without losing cohesion) than some 12 random alternative classes off the internet. The latter will either stay closer to the originals, or have less cohesion than the A5e ones.
Okay, this is also a bit, I don't want to say nonsensical but it is false on one end and obvious on the other. Yes, someone who makes 12 classes at once, with a common vision, will have a more cohesive vision than 12 random classes. I feel that can be nothing but obvious on its face. However, I don't agree that doing them all at once makes it easier or more likely to move further beyond what the official classes. You may find that more, if you are looking at groups of classes, but I personally took the sorcerer before I made my other changes and made massive changes to it. That was the impetus that started the rest of my project.
The issue isn't whether or not you make changes for all 12 classes, but the vision you have for your changes.
No, that does not matter in the least, since you are not WotC your changes are not D&D, and the more radical they are, the less they are D&D-like. They could be compatible however
So, your first comment was "
possibly, I have not seen what you did so cannot really comment on it" which made it sound like you could not decide whether or not my changes were "DnD" until you had seen them. Now you say that it does not matter, because I am not WoTC of the Coast, so any changes I make are not DnD.
You have repeatedly accused me of giving WotC too much power and control over the game, by saying that Fifth Edition refers to the Fifth Edition of Dungeons and Dragons, yet here you are saying that any product not made by WotC is not and can not ever be Dungeons and Dragons. From where I am sitting? You are the one giving them all the power and control they could ever want, by making this harsh dividing line.
No, you can sell products without using the SRD too. The point is that it allows copying rules verbatim into such products.
That only strengthens my position then.
They are not identical, the SRD is a subset. The foundation of D&D still is the core books, not the SRD
But the foundations of those core books is identical to the SRD. Sure, some things are not included in the SRD, but you don't actually NEED them. You don't need Mindflayer and Beholder statblocks to make a game engine, that isn't how it works. I could give you the rules for CR and a dozen spells and you could MAKE a beholder statblock. Now, could you copy the statblock in the MM? No, but who needs to do that to make something? I could instead copy eye monsters from other fantasy media. Pirateaba has a character in her novel series who is a Half-Gazer, and from her abilities it is clear that Gazer's are homages to Beholders. There are dozens upon dozens of inspirations for eye monsters. And nothing says that a game of Dungeons and Dragons is not Dungeons and Dragons if you don't fight a trademarked Beholder.
I did not say you need to create a new core book, you could create new classes for D&D, you still would not be allowed to copy text over
Copying text isn't creating anything anyways, so I don't see why that is important at all.
They can, whether they will is another matter, and whether they have a good chance of winning is another matter still. Still, there were 3pp products for 4e, and that had no meaningful SRD so the SRD is not a requirement for this.
So, again, the SRD is a good thing. It is a useful thing. But it isn't a requirement for people to make things and share rules changes. So why are we continuing to insist that the SRD creates "the game engine known as 5e" and that that is somehow a seperate entity with only the loosest connections to "Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition" that just so happen to share large chunks of the actual game system?
www.enworld.org
