Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mouseferatu" data-source="post: 704013" data-attributes="member: 1288">The entire purpose of the SRD was to allow other companies to make the D&D-compatible products that WotC wasn't going to make due to insufficient profit margins or other issues.Every aspect of the game WotC disallows for us is that much less for us to work with.  Just as an example, I had an idea for a supplement focused on mind flayers--so thoroughly that changing it isn't really an option.  If the flayers are gone from my toolbox, the product isn't published.It's bad for the D20 companies, because it drastically limits us.  (And before you say that six monsters aren't drastic, keep in mind that they include some of the most popular critters in the game, and that any restriction is potentially drastic if it happens to impact someone's ideas.)And frankly, anything that's bad for D20 companies is bad for WotC.  After all, the only "true" purpose the D20 companies serve is to draw attention to D&D, specifically the core rules.  To say nothing of the fact that WotC really doesn't want (or so I assume) the headaches of an entire angry horde of smaller companies complaining at them.But what bothers me the most is the precedent.  I always understood why WotC didn't want to include world-specific concepts, such as god names or Mordenkainen, in the SRD.  But now we're starting to get into what looks an awful lot like arbitrary decisions?  Why take out these creatures?  It can't just be because they're D&D-unique; so are owlbears and blink dogs, just for example.If WotC is going to start making arbitrary restrictions, where's it going to stop?  And if it's not arbitrary, why haven't they explained their reasoning?  They must have known this was going to cause a stir.It's entirely possible WotC has a valid reason for this.  I'd very much love to hear it.  I've been defending them for months when other people complain about their behavior; I'd hate to start seeing them make arbitrary and harmful decisions now and prove me wrong.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />Personally, I'm still hopeful that this is all just a big mistake...</blockquote>

Verification