I made a spell called Wild Strike, which was supposed to be an enhanced version of the UA version of Primal Savagery, involving more body parts and the choice to also do bludgeoning along with piercing and slashing. The reason I was compelled to make it was that a lot of players didn't feel like the XGtE's corrosive counterpart made sense, and since UA is not paid published material, and I did change some aspects about it I thought I would be free from copyright. Apparently this is not the case.
I'd just like to ask what was specifically wrong about it, so I have a clearer understanding of what I can avoid so it can be published. Some suggestions of how I need to change it would also be good.
For example, if I made a spell cantrip named Thunder Orb that acted like Fire Bolt except it does lightning damage, would it still be rejected? What further changes would be needed so it could be accepted? Different damage die? Range? Would a difference of 5 feet be enough? And so on.....
Generally, we reject homebrew content that is equal or even too similar to copyrighted content (including UA). For too similar, I mean when the homebrew is just a slight variation of the copyrighted content. Of course, you can homebrew anything you like and keep it private.
Can you post examples or provide guidelines so I know what needs to change for it to be accepted? Its not just this spell, but all others in the future I planned to make and publish, such as Thunder Orb. It wouldn't just take up a ton of my time, but yours as well given I'd have to repeatedly ask for it to be published, and your team's rejects of it upon review many times over. I'd like to get it out of the way now so I have a clear understanding beyond a vague "its too similar". How many aspects need changing for those words to not threaten rejection? Or is the entirety of an altering self melee attack damage cantrip out of the window, so I don't waste more time modifying it?
Regardless, I would ask to amend your guidelines, as it definitely confused me when you said variations of UA are not accepted. It specifically said paid publication, when UA is playtest material, and is not sold. It definitely cost me a few hours on that one word being there. Why else would the word "paid" be there if not to specifically clear up that unpaid publication is okay then?
"Creating Homebrew Content with Copyrighted Material
You may not create content with the following:
Quoted text from a Wizards of the Coast paid publication."
It is free, but UA content is still non-Basic Rules copyrighted content of WotC, and therefore, it can't be replicated for public sharing without licensing.
It falls under the first item of "Creating Homebrew Content with Copyrighted Material"
Creating Homebrew Content with Copyrighted Material
You may not create content with the following:
Non-SRD or Basic Rules content that is the intellectual property of Wizards of the Coast
As for the examples, we do not have a formula because it depends on the particular case, but at the very least the description of the homebrew must be re-worked, and, from the mechanic's standpoint, we would like to see at least two changes.
Wow, I guess I'm actually fearful of UA being released if it eliminates so many options.... I had a lot of ideas relating to starter spells in that. This is going to be frustrating finding and tippy toeing over all the subraces too.
Thank you for the rework suggestions, that at least gives me some framework.
Whether UA has been implemented here doesn't matter in thus case. It is still the published, copyrighted property of WotC, so you'd not have been able to publish it in any case. If you need to duplicate UA content, just don't publish it. You can recreate it word for word for your own use. Problem solved.
You can't publish, correct. You are absolutely free to create them for the private use of you and the players in your campaign. The question is why do you feel the need to recreate and publish the UA content. Do you think it needs to be published for your players to use it? That isn't the case.
We are looking at ways to improve the Rules and Guidelines around publishing homebrew creations (as well as the visibility of the rules both on the site and in the homebrew editor). In a previous thread asking about the reasons behind why homebrew was rejected, this was the advice I gave (with a few newer points added since Races and other elements can be home-brewed now):
The things we mainly check for are:
Copyrighted Images (Images that are on Deviantart fall under their strict copyright, No MTG/Hearthstone card images, Images of Real people - whether movie stars or yourself)
Copyrighted Content (like Captain America's Shield, etc.), and content that is not in the SRD (Chromatic Orb, Green-Flame Blade, Forrest Gnomes, etc.)
Ensuring that the homebrew submission is not a reskin (no cold fireballs, no Vorpal War hammers, changing a Flame tongue to be 1d6 instead of 2d6, etc.)
That the submission doesn't have text or language that is deemed inappropriate, or can offend.
Where possible, check that it is not found in a published work (Whether by WotC or a 3rd Party creator) [Things from Critical Role, or Tome of Beasts etc will be rejected]
Is the user's own work - we assume that everyone is submitting their own creations. There has been times when we have had identical submissions from multiple different users. This usually means its a copy from a published material, or a homebrew creation on the web somewhere. The rules state that all work should be your own.
Is this designed for a personal campaign (Homebrew which is: "an old diary we found hidden at the bottom of the well, it has the mark of the old ruins on the front" would be rejected, as it is design for a specific campaign)
All abilities are written into the description (for spells/items) so anyone looking through the homebrew lists can see what the submission does
With Races now - ensuring all modifiers written in the description are coded correctly in the editor (Please remember to test folks!)
Majority of the time everything is fine, however some submissions may fall into a category where its not deemed original content. I've personally seen a number of Undead X Monster, or a Giant/Baby version of a creature - unless the creature submitted has enough variation from the base creature, we usually advise that it is too similar.
Depending on the reason why I'm rejecting something, a message will be added - there are a few times where additional commentary will be added (for example if someone is making a whole hep of minor changes to a series of monster I might note down to make a thread in the homebrew forums to discuss with out users).
The slight variations/reskin is usually one of the main reject reasons I use. Changing the damage type, rewording something slightly to create a greater/minor version, changing a few of the stats of a monster to make it a higher/lower difficult - these are all great, but would not be accepted for public listing.
In the future there will be additional communication capabilities on homebrew, potentially up/down voting and comment dialogues. The mod team and staff have talked about different improvements to the system to make it easier and more friendly to everyone.
I won't say I know a solution, but I will say how frustrating it is to keep being rejected without knowing the line to cross. I'm trying to keep the spirit of it intact while still making changes to satisfying dndbeyond's sense of copyright, and it doesn't look like that will be possible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I made a spell called Wild Strike, which was supposed to be an enhanced version of the UA version of Primal Savagery, involving more body parts and the choice to also do bludgeoning along with piercing and slashing. The reason I was compelled to make it was that a lot of players didn't feel like the XGtE's corrosive counterpart made sense, and since UA is not paid published material, and I did change some aspects about it I thought I would be free from copyright. Apparently this is not the case.
I'd just like to ask what was specifically wrong about it, so I have a clearer understanding of what I can avoid so it can be published. Some suggestions of how I need to change it would also be good.
For example, if I made a spell cantrip named Thunder Orb that acted like Fire Bolt except it does lightning damage, would it still be rejected? What further changes would be needed so it could be accepted? Different damage die? Range? Would a difference of 5 feet be enough? And so on.....
Hi,
Generally, we reject homebrew content that is equal or even too similar to copyrighted content (including UA). For too similar, I mean when the homebrew is just a slight variation of the copyrighted content. Of course, you can homebrew anything you like and keep it private.
Can you post examples or provide guidelines so I know what needs to change for it to be accepted? Its not just this spell, but all others in the future I planned to make and publish, such as Thunder Orb. It wouldn't just take up a ton of my time, but yours as well given I'd have to repeatedly ask for it to be published, and your team's rejects of it upon review many times over. I'd like to get it out of the way now so I have a clear understanding beyond a vague "its too similar". How many aspects need changing for those words to not threaten rejection? Or is the entirety of an altering self melee attack damage cantrip out of the window, so I don't waste more time modifying it?
Regardless, I would ask to amend your guidelines, as it definitely confused me when you said variations of UA are not accepted. It specifically said paid publication, when UA is playtest material, and is not sold. It definitely cost me a few hours on that one word being there. Why else would the word "paid" be there if not to specifically clear up that unpaid publication is okay then?
"Creating Homebrew Content with Copyrighted Material
You may not create content with the following:
It is free, but UA content is still non-Basic Rules copyrighted content of WotC, and therefore, it can't be replicated for public sharing without licensing.
It falls under the first item of "Creating Homebrew Content with Copyrighted Material"
As for the examples, we do not have a formula because it depends on the particular case, but at the very least the description of the homebrew must be re-worked, and, from the mechanic's standpoint, we would like to see at least two changes.
Wow, I guess I'm actually fearful of UA being released if it eliminates so many options.... I had a lot of ideas relating to starter spells in that. This is going to be frustrating finding and tippy toeing over all the subraces too.
Thank you for the rework suggestions, that at least gives me some framework.
We are here to help at any time. Even in case of rejection, I am sure ways to make it work will be found.
Whether UA has been implemented here doesn't matter in thus case. It is still the published, copyrighted property of WotC, so you'd not have been able to publish it in any case. If you need to duplicate UA content, just don't publish it. You can recreate it word for word for your own use. Problem solved.
It was just stated I can't make it or a minor variant of it word for word and the idea was to publish it here, so the problem can't be solved.
You can't publish, correct. You are absolutely free to create them for the private use of you and the players in your campaign. The question is why do you feel the need to recreate and publish the UA content. Do you think it needs to be published for your players to use it? That isn't the case.
The problem here is I wanted to publish it and can't. It has nothing to do with my players in particular.
We are looking at ways to improve the Rules and Guidelines around publishing homebrew creations (as well as the visibility of the rules both on the site and in the homebrew editor). In a previous thread asking about the reasons behind why homebrew was rejected, this was the advice I gave (with a few newer points added since Races and other elements can be home-brewed now):
Depending on the reason why I'm rejecting something, a message will be added - there are a few times where additional commentary will be added (for example if someone is making a whole hep of minor changes to a series of monster I might note down to make a thread in the homebrew forums to discuss with out users).
The slight variations/reskin is usually one of the main reject reasons I use. Changing the damage type, rewording something slightly to create a greater/minor version, changing a few of the stats of a monster to make it a higher/lower difficult - these are all great, but would not be accepted for public listing.
In the future there will be additional communication capabilities on homebrew, potentially up/down voting and comment dialogues. The mod team and staff have talked about different improvements to the system to make it easier and more friendly to everyone.
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of
I won't say I know a solution, but I will say how frustrating it is to keep being rejected without knowing the line to cross. I'm trying to keep the spirit of it intact while still making changes to satisfying dndbeyond's sense of copyright, and it doesn't look like that will be possible.