Level Up (A5E) What are your common house rules?

[Selganor]

If you haven't already, you might want to check out the revised artificer, which I believe addresses at least the first point (it was a big sticking point for me that he thankfully fixed). It's called Advanced Artificers, technically it's 3PP but it's the same guy who wrote the original A5e artificer for the GPG. Went through a lot of community feedback and updated it to make a much, much better version (IMO).

That's where I got the idea. In the campaign I'm in we find so much loot that I don't have the time and money to do schematics for all the stuff we get. (I got 21 schematics for my level 4/3 artificer/savant - but still a few days )
But I've played in quite a few other games where there weren't that many chances for an artificer to get schematics hence the houserule.

 

[Tessarael]

I assume that you're referring to this PDF for Advanced Artificers?
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/459022/advanced-artificers

From the sample PDF, it looks very similar to the one on the A5E wiki:
Artificer | Level Up

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I assume that you're referring to this PDF for Advanced Artificers?
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/459022/advanced-artificers

From the sample PDF, it looks very similar to the one on the A5E wiki:
Artificer | Level Up

it is essentially a revision of the official artificer by the same guy, so that shouldn't be surprising. advanced artificers has a different (and imo far better) capstone, cleaned up and changed class features (most notably getting schematics as you level as previously mentioned), new subclasses, and new knacks.

 

[noodohs]

If I were the company which hired him to write the material I’d be discussing that with my lawyer.

Why? ENP does not own the rights to creations published in the GPG, they simply retain exclusive publishing rights for one year, after which anyone can do whatever they want with the content they submitted. He hasn't broken any rules.

 

[Tessarael]

This is a good thing. It provides the opportunity for materials to be improved, extended, and changed as needed.

 

[Waller]

Why? ENP does not own the rights to creations published in the GPG, they simply retain exclusive publishing rights for one year, after which anyone can do whatever they want with the content they submitted. He hasn't broken any rules.

Selling the publisher a broken version of the class, and then releasing the 'fixed' one yourself and encouraging people to go get that instead? Maybe it's not a legal issue, but it's a bit unethical. Sure the extra support stuff is the sort of thing a 3PP should be doing, like new archetypes and stuff, but alterations to the actual class should be errata. It's like the 3PP is selling errata to their own work which they were paid for in Gate Pass Gazette.

I dunno. If nobody else thinks that's a bit weird, maybe it's just me. It wouldn't want to make me hire that writer again though.

Also doesn't the compatibility license specifically prohibit that product title? At first I thought this was official. But I guess maybe that's the idea? The message I'm getting is "this is the REAL artificer".

1. You may not use EN Publishing’s name on your product (except see [11] below), and the name of your products may not include the words “Level Up”, “Advanced 5E”, “Advanced 5th Edition”, or “Advanced”. You agree not to create or use any names similar enough to ours that people might believe that your material was produced by us.

 

[noodohs]

I don't even know where to begin with this weird take. ENP was not given a "broken" version. That was the only version at the time. Many people, including myself, expressed frustration with the class. The author gathered feedback, improved it, and put out an improved version, over a year later. There is nothing wrong with that. This is not WotC, there is no need for being so oppressively litigious here. The entire point of having an open SRD is to allow people to improve on the concepts.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't even know where to begin with this weird take. ENP was not given a "broken" version. That was the only version at the time. Many people, including myself, expressed frustration with the class. The author gathered feedback, improved it, and put out an improved version, over a year later. There is nothing wrong with that. This is not WotC, there is no need for being so oppressively litigious here. The entire point of having an open SRD is to allow people to improve on the concepts.

In this case, the creator improved on their own concept.

 

[Grant at Broken Synapse]

Yes, technically the compatibility logo license prohibits that title. If ENP wanted to them to change the title they could. But that's really not the problem you're having.

Authors that write for the GPG do not have full editorial control over their creations. Yes, it comes out as part of the official stuff, but for many creators, getting that editorial control back after a year is important enough to release their version (like a director's cut, if you will). You dont have to buy either or you can pick and choose what you like from both. ENP doesn't suffer either way. Also, as mentioned, they have and are passionate about a5e being an open system.

 

[CleverNickName]

Two of my favorites:

• Healing potions always heal the maximum amount (no roll required), but cost twice as much.
• Always roll for hit points, but reroll 1s (characters with d10 or d12 hit dice can reroll 1s and 2s).