Unearthed Arcana XP and the d20 License

[jmucchiello]

The only death-related term I could find was stable.

Help me out?

That's what I get for posting without checking. No, wound and vitality points are compatible with the d20 guide. The closest they come to a problem is staggered. There is no equivalent condition in the w/vp system. So they don't redefine so much as ignore it.

I guess my only lasting complaint about the book is you have to reprint material from it to use it since "Unearthed Arcana" is trademarked (the little tm is on the cover) so until they create a license for referring to the book, you can't say "You can also use the bloodlines variant from Unearthed Arcana when creating character in so and so." (Hopefully I'll be proven wrong about this as well. )

 

[reiella]

Hi everyone,

It was mentioned elsewhere on EN World that WotC's Unearthed Arcana includes an alternate table and method for gaining experience (having only briefly glanced over that chapter of the book, I think that's correct).

The question that arises from this is, can other publishers use that portion of the book (which is OGC) in their d20 License products? The d20 License states you may not include alternate methods of character creation or gaining/using experience...so it seems rather conflicting.

Can anyone enlighten me on how this would work?

Mostly, I was wrong about the phrasing and I forgot that the Experience part is in reference to definition of applying it.

Sidenote that I saw mentioned .
EverQuest has broken the OGL (it made direct reference to the D&D PH in a product) in the past as well, and may be dangerously close to violating the compatiblity clause (the newer products are claiming 3.5 Fantasy RPG compatibility which disolves most of the illusion that it may be refering to any other 3rd edition FRPG).

 

[Ranger REG]

Sidenote that I saw mentioned .
EverQuest has broken the OGL (it made direct reference to the D&D PH in a product) in the past as well,

What did Wizards do? Did Sword & Sorcery cure the breach?

and may be dangerously close to violating the compatiblity clause (the newer products are claiming 3.5 Fantasy RPG compatibility which disolves most of the illusion that it may be refering to any other 3rd edition FRPG).

Perhaps, but they did not make any specific direct mention. Again, we're not the police on this. That's up to Wizards.

 

[reiella]

What did Wizards do? Did Sword & Sorcery cure the breach?



Perhaps, but they did not make any specific direct mention. Again, we're not the police on this. That's up to Wizards.

To my knowledge, Wizards hasn't done anything about it. I haven't heard anything either way on it. And to my knowledge, no reprints or recall type requests have gone out for Temple of Solusek Ro. It was really just an "honest mistake" I believe, they copied some generic table text from one of their d20 products (including the reference)

And you are right about us not being the enforcement of the matter , but it still a questionable area (one that I doubt heavily would be answered to my satisfication outside of a judicial evaluation ).

[ Side note, don't get me wrong, I love the EQRpg game, just it seems to have a tendancy of license questionablity ]

 

[Ranger REG]

Just report the possible violation to Wizards and let them handle it. Otherwise, do nothing like a bystander at an accident and hope that Wizards come around.

* shrugs *

 

[Cergorach]

They could have asked WotC nicely and gotten permission the information...

It might not be wise to come to uninformed conclusions.

 

[Ranger REG]

True, but if in doubt, you might as well report it. Wizards will either tell you they gave permission or will be looking into the matter.