Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9452144" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Replacing rules in the PHB is not new.No, that is very much false.You can only have a copyright violation if you are attempting to sell a product. You cannot violate copyright by making something related to a product, and giving it to people for free. And that is even assuming that things like game mechanics CAN be copyrighted. Sure, maybe if I put up a complete reproduction of the 2014 Fighter class on the internet, that may violate copyright, but making a fighter subclass certainly does not. So, are those people creating for 5e or 5e DnD? What is the difference?But you are again factually incorrect. DnD 5e's scope was changing before any of these other &quot;compatible&quot; games were being made. WotC is not the only people who can expand the scope of 5e. They were the only people allowed to SELL those products.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 9452144, member: 6801228"] Replacing rules in the PHB is not new. No, that is very much false. You can only have a copyright violation if you are attempting to sell a product. You cannot violate copyright by making something related to a product, and giving it to people for free. And that is even assuming that things like game mechanics CAN be copyrighted. Sure, maybe if I put up a complete reproduction of the 2014 Fighter class on the internet, that may violate copyright, but making a fighter subclass certainly does not. So, are those people creating for 5e or 5e DnD? What is the difference? But you are again factually incorrect. DnD 5e's scope was changing before any of these other "compatible" games were being made. WotC is not the only people who can expand the scope of 5e. They were the only people allowed to SELL those products. [/QUOTE]

Verification