The new OGL terms have legitimately convinced me to never financially support WotC again. I have zero interest in paying them any more money, and while I have no illusions that they would even notice my lack of contributions to their extremely deep pockets, I can't think of a single reason to reward WotC for decisions which are explicitly anti-creator and anti-consumer.
At the end of the day, WotC are still big mad about Pathfinder existing, and they don't want that to happen again. By doing this, they are ensuring that it definitely will; it just won't be explicitly based on D&D.
People who might otherwise have been interested in creating content for D&D will be discouraged from doing so, because monetizing the hard work they put in will never be realistic for the vast majority, and then all that's left are people who are motivated by spite to make something that will draw players away from D&D like Pathfinder did.
It's a fitting end to 5e: After a promising start with some genuinely nice changes to accessibility and ease of play, we've had to put up with over eight years of bad lore, a slow drip of content that's largely been disappointing aside from a very small number of standout modules, and a consistent message from WotC that the most important things to them is not that the game's quality, but that as many people pay them to play it as possible.
tl;dr Capitalism ruins yet another thing we've loved for years. In other news, water is wet.
Unless an aftermarket part specifically uses the auto makers logo or name on the part they do not have to pay a cent in royalties. They can even specifically state that the part works with a particular car.
So as long as no content creator uses the D&D logo, name, references the D20 system(?) or quotes copy written material anyplace in the content then they should never have to pay any royalty fee of any kind.
No matter how much they make in profit. WotC has no right to even ask for financials in that case.
All old contracts must be upheld by both sides. Even if a new contract is offered.
You pretty much will need to write your own setting, monsters, spells, magic items, campaign, art (if wanted) etc to ensure you do not infringe on anyone else or sublicensed non-WotC content that has say a compatibility logo on it. (ie, 5E compatible like Tomb of Beasts1/2/3 manuals and the like)
We used to do just that back in the day.
Its easy to not copy any of that stuff out of D&D. New spells, monsters and magic items are not needed when your writing up a new campaign and settings. Artwork is cheap to free all over the internet. Plus I can find 6 local artists if I need to.
It would be up to the Dm to populate the setting with the stats for notable NPC's, level appropriate monsters, appropriate treasures, and random encounters. Pretty much exactly what the DM should already be doing.
I have seen campaigns and settings so generic that they would fit multiple different games with no extra work.
PF is 100% a competitor, and that should actually be understood to put this in a more negative light. It suggests that Wizards has plainly anticompetitive motives for attempting to renege on an existing agreement after allowing a competitor to develop a business that relies on that agreement.
It would be like an architecture & construction firm distributing free building plans 'for the benefit of the community,' waiting for competing firms to invest time and effort constructing buildings according to those plans, and then declaring that they're retroactively modifying the terms of the agreement and demanding royalties on revenues from buildings constructed according to their 'free' plans. Their earlier actions created the community of competitors that rely on their plans, and their current actions will force competitors to fork over onerous royalties. 25% on revenue over $750k would be ~23.4% of Paizo's total revenue, as of 2021. For reference, Hasbro, WotC's parent company, had profit margins of only ~11% in 2021—so unless Paizo is more than twice as profitable as Hasbro (which seems unlikely), the royalties under the revised OGL would be more than all of their profits in a pretty good year. That means they would have to dramatically scale back their business operations, be driven out of business altogether, or be forced into negotiating a separate agreement with Wizards that only allows their business to exist as a functional subsidiary of Wizards.
It could also be that they didn't foresee a company like Paizo building their entire business around a game using WotC's rules set that would be marketed to D&D 3.5e players as an alternative to 4e, and were bound by the language in the OGL from taking any action.
Don't get me wrong, what we've seen of the new OGL absolutely stinks, but I imagine if they had anticipated something like Pathfinder, they would have written the original OGL differently from the get-go.
I feel like an investor meeting about under monetisation followed immediately by plans to... Monetize third party works- is not a coincidence. There's a very clear connected corporate mindset there.
And I feel from looking at the way they've been dealing MTG They're perfectly willing to gouge and gouge until they hit a wall. It wont really matter if they Squeeze everything- But bigger squeezes are likely to make the landscape worse. Especially if they are directly targeting competitors without actually increases the amount or quality of their own product.
The only announcement Wizards made about monetizing D&D was when they said that people making over $0.75 million a year have to pay a small royalty on the revenue over that number. There are less than 20 people/companies who were making that much money off the game, and Wizards of the Coast has every right to take a small share of the money from people getting rich off their products. Not only that, but this wouldn't actually make them nearly as much money as some people say it will, since so few people are directly affected by it.
Even in the Gizmodo article, where they talked about unverified "leaks," I didn't see very many clauses that would actually serve to make them that much money. The biggest (obviously also unconfirmed) clause that people are objecting to is the one that would hurt RPGs (such as Pathfinder) that are using older versions of the license. In all honesty, that clause would probably lose them more money and customers than it would gain them, judging by the reactions of numerous fans in threads such as this.
In other words, if this is seriously the way in which Wizards is trying to "monetize D&D," then they are doing an absolutely terrible job at it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Seems like a good time for the content owners for Tolkien and other fantasy setting creators to sue Hasbro. WoTC has ripped off content and ideas from all sorts of sources, including Paizo.
It could also be that they didn't foresee a company like Paizo building their entire business around a game using WotC's rules set that would be marketed to D&D 3.5e players as an alternative to 4e, and were bound by the language in the OGL from taking any action.
Don't get me wrong, what we've seen of the new OGL absolutely stinks, but I imagine if they had anticipated something like Pathfinder, they would have written the original OGL differently from the get-go.
Actually, they did foresee some of that. The originators of the OGL wanted to protect the game from bad decisions by the company. They saw firsthand how poor corporate leadership could destroy the game and the OGL was meant to be a shield against bad (or even just extreme) leadership decisions.
That included things like changing the game into something a lot of the community did not want as well as the company making business decisions that a lot of the the community doesn’t like. Pathfinder was an intended response to something like the radical changes of 4e. (Whether 4e was good, bad, or otherwise is beside the point. What matters is if enough fans want a different D&D experience than WotC was offering, the OGL was absolutely intended to facilitate that.)
The main problem was that everyone who felt that way was either forced out or left WotC between then and now. Current leadership apparently has a completely opposite view of the OGL than those who created it (and are even apparently trying to gaslight us into thinking Oceania always been at war with Eastasia, oops, I mean WotC never intended the OGL to allow any of this.)
Honestly, it's not the OGL that made Pathfinder possible, it's the SRD -- the 3.0 SRD was far too complete as a game, the stuff they left out to prevent treating it as a complete game wasn't at all adequate.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
HI - it has been a while. So here's an excellent compromise:
WOTC builds a slick tool and editable driven interface for digital needs - that allows add ons and customization, but also wants to close the door on other party hosting sites - as long as it covers mapping, tools and you get everything you paid for either digitally or in a paper book as accessible and built into the price you already paid, that might be ok.
WOTC allows companies to continue their 3rd party licenses and offers to buy them out legitimately, or better yet HIRE THEM FOR MORE CONTENT, that's excellent. The creativity of these small businesses is what drove 5e for many many players and groups. If WOTC/Hasbro has a hard time making good-great content, why the hell not offer creative positions for the people already doing the work? Win win.
Denying the success and growth of 5e was due to homebrew and 3rd party options is just plain stupid - 3/4 of the material (settings, modules) created internally by WOTC is crap. I have a DM who insists on running it and he is too lazy to flesh in loot and rewards, as was the designers who made it so we are starved for items etc. Lazy, lazy.
Instead of beating them to death, can WotC agree to help the 3rd party creators for a fee or just "if you can't beat them, join them?" - Hire them, buy them out but retain the creative staff and give them leeway in making material. There has got to be a better way.
I do not think I will make the jump to (M)one(y) DnD as I already have a bad taste in my mouth for the woke content, but doing this to companies who thrive on successful creativity - and leaving us with crap source books for a much higher price (oh it is coming less content for more $), will steer me and my people to just stick with 5e and move on from anything new from Hasbro.
PF is 100% a competitor, and that should actually be understood to put this in a more negative light. It suggests that Wizards has plainly anticompetitive motives for attempting to renege on an existing agreement after allowing a competitor to develop a business that relies on that agreement.
It would be like an architecture & construction firm distributing free building plans 'for the benefit of the community,' waiting for competing firms to invest time and effort constructing buildings according to those plans, and then declaring that they're retroactively modifying the terms of the agreement and demanding royalties on revenues from buildings constructed according to their 'free' plans. Their earlier actions created the community of competitors that rely on their plans, and their current actions will force competitors to fork over onerous royalties. 25% on revenue over $750k would be ~23.4% of Paizo's total revenue, as of 2021. For reference, Hasbro, WotC's parent company, had profit margins of only ~11% in 2021—so unless Paizo is more than twice as profitable as Hasbro (which seems unlikely), the royalties under the revised OGL would be more than all of their profits in a pretty good year. That means they would have to dramatically scale back their business operations, be driven out of business altogether, or be forced into negotiating a separate agreement with Wizards that only allows their business to exist as a functional subsidiary of Wizards.
It could also be that they didn't foresee a company like Paizo building their entire business around a game using WotC's rules set that would be marketed to D&D 3.5e players as an alternative to 4e, and were bound by the language in the OGL from taking any action.
Don't get me wrong, what we've seen of the new OGL absolutely stinks, but I imagine if they had anticipated something like Pathfinder, they would have written the original OGL differently from the get-go.
Yeah, could be! WotC is absolutely entitled to regret the OGL. They're just not entitled to take it back.
This could be a sneaky way to get new content instead of just hiring new writers.
New book series tend to inspire new content. Hire a writer or two.
New movies and small screen shows(tv and streaming) tend to inspire new content. Hire a writer or two.
Hire writers from other cultures in order to include their myths and legends also.
Do you see a trend here? It starting to look like they want to feed off of the fans instead of creating new content in house. By the way they could just hire those fans and content creators. Has anyone been offered a good deal yet?
Pathfinder was an intended response to something like the radical changes of 4e. (Whether 4e was good, bad, or otherwise is beside the point. What matters is if enough fans want a different D&D experience than WotC was offering, the OGL was absolutely intended to facilitate that.)
The OGL was published when D&D 3E launched in 2000. It wasn't written for the purpose of enabling another company to create a 3.5E look-alike so D&D fans had an alternative to D&D 4E.
The OGL was published when D&D 3E launched in 2000. It wasn't written for the purpose of enabling another company to create a 3.5E look-alike so D&D fans had an alternative to D&D 4E.
Wizards has had over thirteen years to object to this. The OGL does not state in any way that such a thing wasn't permitted.
The OGL was published when D&D 3E launched in 2000. It wasn't written for the purpose of enabling another company to create a 3.5E look-alike so D&D fans had an alternative to D&D 4E.
Wizards has had over thirteen years to object to this. The OGL does not state in any way that such a thing wasn't permitted.
I know. As I mentioned before, WotC probably wrote themselves into a corner with the original OGL vis-a-vis Pathfinder. If they had predicted that the OGL would allow a company to create a direct market competitor - based on WotC's own rules set - when they changed editions, they would probably have written something into the original OGL to address that.
As for why they haven't done anything until now, I don't know. Maybe they had assumed that when they released 5E, they'd get players who had left for Pathfinder back. Maybe they've been stewing all this time trying to figure out some legal way to change the OGL.
Pathfinder was an intended response to something like the radical changes of 4e. (Whether 4e was good, bad, or otherwise is beside the point. What matters is if enough fans want a different D&D experience than WotC was offering, the OGL was absolutely intended to facilitate that.)
The OGL was published when D&D 3E launched in 2000. It wasn't written for the purpose of enabling another company to create a 3.5E look-alike so D&D fans had an alternative to D&D 4E.
I was there, I read their reasoning. I didn’t say it was specifically about 4e but it was specifically to guard against future WotC decisions.
The OGL was published when D&D 3E launched in 2000. It wasn't written for the purpose of enabling another company to create a 3.5E look-alike so D&D fans had an alternative to D&D 4E.
Wizards has had over thirteen years to object to this. The OGL does not state in any way that such a thing wasn't permitted.
I know. As I mentioned before, WotC probably wrote themselves into a corner with the original OGL vis-a-vis Pathfinder. If they had predicted that the OGL would allow a company to create a direct market competitor - based on WotC's own rules set - when they changed editions, they would probably have written something into the original OGL to address that.
As for why they haven't done anything until now, I don't know. Maybe they had assumed that when they released 5E, they'd get players who had left for Pathfinder back. Maybe they've been stewing all this time trying to figure out some legal way to change the OGL.
FWIW, I'm not in any way in favor of the new OGL.
I think they did, in many cases. My gaming group switched to Pathfinder rather than play D&D4e, but then we decided to switch back to 5e when it came out. But we've been discussing about whether to adopt 6e when it comes out. He hadn't made any decision, but I believe that this was the final nail in that particular coffin. One of our players is working on getting a D&D streaming channel going, and is starting to see a bit of success... and this is a shot across his bow.
The OGL was published when D&D 3E launched in 2000. It wasn't written for the purpose of enabling another company to create a 3.5E look-alike so D&D fans had an alternative to D&D 4E.
Wizards has had over thirteen years to object to this. The OGL does not state in any way that such a thing wasn't permitted.
I know. As I mentioned before, WotC probably wrote themselves into a corner with the original OGL vis-a-vis Pathfinder. If they had predicted that the OGL would allow a company to create a direct market competitor - based on WotC's own rules set - when they changed editions, they would probably have written something into the original OGL to address that.
As for why they haven't done anything until now, I don't know. Maybe they had assumed that when they released 5E, they'd get players who had left for Pathfinder back. Maybe they've been stewing all this time trying to figure out some legal way to change the OGL.
FWIW, I'm not in any way in favor of the new OGL.
I think they did, in many cases. My gaming group switched to Pathfinder rather than play D&D4e, but then we decided to switch back to 5e when it came out. But we've been discussing about whether to adopt 6e when it comes out. He hadn't made any decision, but I believe that this was the final nail in that particular coffin. One of our players is working on getting a D&D streaming channel going, and is starting to see a bit of success... and this is a shot across his bow.
I'm pretty sure the new OGL doesn't affect streaming. That is part of the as-yet-unchanged Fan Content rules, if I'm not mistaken. The OGL is purely for static documents, like PDF files.
I'll be honest, whilst I dislike the terms I'm hearing of "WotC will own everything you have ever made", I am hesitant to think of it as the end of D&D. I agree that the 3rd party publishers are making the game more popular, but having spent a lot of time in the DMs Only section of this forum, I am pretty sure that over 90% of people who enjoy D&D do it for their own enjoyment, not to profit from it, and whenever you see a thread asking for help or feedback, it's never "I'm thinking of using monster X from kobold press book Y", it's always "I've made up a monster and I want to get feedback". I never see people say "I'm running this unoffical adventure and this happened, what do I do?", it's always "I'm running this official adventure" or "Im running my own homebrew campaign".
The OGL only affects people who are selling their D&D creativity online. 90% of D&D creativity is unpublished and lives in a folder in someones DMing bag, and is thrown away after they die. 99% of the worlds D&D has been played in has never, and will never, be published.
The creativity of the game will live on - people will just have to do it for themselves, which is what most people do anyway.
The new OGL terms have legitimately convinced me to never financially support WotC again. I have zero interest in paying them any more money, and while I have no illusions that they would even notice my lack of contributions to their extremely deep pockets, I can't think of a single reason to reward WotC for decisions which are explicitly anti-creator and anti-consumer.
At the end of the day, WotC are still big mad about Pathfinder existing, and they don't want that to happen again. By doing this, they are ensuring that it definitely will; it just won't be explicitly based on D&D.
People who might otherwise have been interested in creating content for D&D will be discouraged from doing so, because monetizing the hard work they put in will never be realistic for the vast majority, and then all that's left are people who are motivated by spite to make something that will draw players away from D&D like Pathfinder did.
It's a fitting end to 5e: After a promising start with some genuinely nice changes to accessibility and ease of play, we've had to put up with over eight years of bad lore, a slow drip of content that's largely been disappointing aside from a very small number of standout modules, and a consistent message from WotC that the most important things to them is not that the game's quality, but that as many people pay them to play it as possible.
tl;dr Capitalism ruins yet another thing we've loved for years. In other news, water is wet.
We used to do just that back in the day.
Its easy to not copy any of that stuff out of D&D.
New spells, monsters and magic items are not needed when your writing up a new campaign and settings.
Artwork is cheap to free all over the internet. Plus I can find 6 local artists if I need to.
It would be up to the Dm to populate the setting with the stats for notable NPC's, level appropriate monsters, appropriate treasures, and random encounters. Pretty much exactly what the DM should already be doing.
I have seen campaigns and settings so generic that they would fit multiple different games with no extra work.
one problem with this, it claims that Doungen's & Dragons is an open game, which it is not.
It could also be that they didn't foresee a company like Paizo building their entire business around a game using WotC's rules set that would be marketed to D&D 3.5e players as an alternative to 4e, and were bound by the language in the OGL from taking any action.
Don't get me wrong, what we've seen of the new OGL absolutely stinks, but I imagine if they had anticipated something like Pathfinder, they would have written the original OGL differently from the get-go.
I don't spread unconfirmed rumors about someone, whether or not they are my "friend."
The only announcement Wizards made about monetizing D&D was when they said that people making over $0.75 million a year have to pay a small royalty on the revenue over that number. There are less than 20 people/companies who were making that much money off the game, and Wizards of the Coast has every right to take a small share of the money from people getting rich off their products. Not only that, but this wouldn't actually make them nearly as much money as some people say it will, since so few people are directly affected by it.
Even in the Gizmodo article, where they talked about unverified "leaks," I didn't see very many clauses that would actually serve to make them that much money. The biggest (obviously also unconfirmed) clause that people are objecting to is the one that would hurt RPGs (such as Pathfinder) that are using older versions of the license. In all honesty, that clause would probably lose them more money and customers than it would gain them, judging by the reactions of numerous fans in threads such as this.
In other words, if this is seriously the way in which Wizards is trying to "monetize D&D," then they are doing an absolutely terrible job at it.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.1. Pathfinder 2e is still an OGL game.
2. Pathfinder 2e is considerably less newbie friendly than DnD.
Seems like a good time for the content owners for Tolkien and other fantasy setting creators to sue Hasbro. WoTC has ripped off content and ideas from all sorts of sources, including Paizo.
Actually, they did foresee some of that. The originators of the OGL wanted to protect the game from bad decisions by the company. They saw firsthand how poor corporate leadership could destroy the game and the OGL was meant to be a shield against bad (or even just extreme) leadership decisions.
That included things like changing the game into something a lot of the community did not want as well as the company making business decisions that a lot of the the community doesn’t like. Pathfinder was an intended response to something like the radical changes of 4e. (Whether 4e was good, bad, or otherwise is beside the point. What matters is if enough fans want a different D&D experience than WotC was offering, the OGL was absolutely intended to facilitate that.)
The main problem was that everyone who felt that way was either forced out or left WotC between then and now. Current leadership apparently has a completely opposite view of the OGL than those who created it (and are even apparently trying to gaslight us into thinking Oceania always been at war with Eastasia, oops, I mean WotC never intended the OGL to allow any of this.)
Honestly, it's not the OGL that made Pathfinder possible, it's the SRD -- the 3.0 SRD was far too complete as a game, the stuff they left out to prevent treating it as a complete game wasn't at all adequate.
LOL
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
HI - it has been a while. So here's an excellent compromise:
WOTC builds a slick tool and editable driven interface for digital needs - that allows add ons and customization, but also wants to close the door on other party hosting sites - as long as it covers mapping, tools and you get everything you paid for either digitally or in a paper book as accessible and built into the price you already paid, that might be ok.
WOTC allows companies to continue their 3rd party licenses and offers to buy them out legitimately, or better yet HIRE THEM FOR MORE CONTENT, that's excellent. The creativity of these small businesses is what drove 5e for many many players and groups. If WOTC/Hasbro has a hard time making good-great content, why the hell not offer creative positions for the people already doing the work? Win win.
Denying the success and growth of 5e was due to homebrew and 3rd party options is just plain stupid - 3/4 of the material (settings, modules) created internally by WOTC is crap. I have a DM who insists on running it and he is too lazy to flesh in loot and rewards, as was the designers who made it so we are starved for items etc. Lazy, lazy.
Instead of beating them to death, can WotC agree to help the 3rd party creators for a fee or just "if you can't beat them, join them?" - Hire them, buy them out but retain the creative staff and give them leeway in making material. There has got to be a better way.
I do not think I will make the jump to (M)one(y) DnD as I already have a bad taste in my mouth for the woke content, but doing this to companies who thrive on successful creativity - and leaving us with crap source books for a much higher price (oh it is coming less content for more $), will steer me and my people to just stick with 5e and move on from anything new from Hasbro.
Yeah, could be! WotC is absolutely entitled to regret the OGL. They're just not entitled to take it back.
This could be a sneaky way to get new content instead of just hiring new writers.
New book series tend to inspire new content. Hire a writer or two.
New movies and small screen shows(tv and streaming) tend to inspire new content. Hire a writer or two.
Hire writers from other cultures in order to include their myths and legends also.
Do you see a trend here? It starting to look like they want to feed off of the fans instead of creating new content in house.
By the way they could just hire those fans and content creators. Has anyone been offered a good deal yet?
The OGL was published when D&D 3E launched in 2000. It wasn't written for the purpose of enabling another company to create a 3.5E look-alike so D&D fans had an alternative to D&D 4E.
Yep, I'm not a programmer, but I've used Excel for character sheets/management long before D&D Beyond existed.
Wizards has had over thirteen years to object to this. The OGL does not state in any way that such a thing wasn't permitted.
I know. As I mentioned before, WotC probably wrote themselves into a corner with the original OGL vis-a-vis Pathfinder. If they had predicted that the OGL would allow a company to create a direct market competitor - based on WotC's own rules set - when they changed editions, they would probably have written something into the original OGL to address that.
As for why they haven't done anything until now, I don't know. Maybe they had assumed that when they released 5E, they'd get players who had left for Pathfinder back. Maybe they've been stewing all this time trying to figure out some legal way to change the OGL.
FWIW, I'm not in any way in favor of the new OGL.
I was there, I read their reasoning. I didn’t say it was specifically about 4e but it was specifically to guard against future WotC decisions.
I think they did, in many cases. My gaming group switched to Pathfinder rather than play D&D4e, but then we decided to switch back to 5e when it came out. But we've been discussing about whether to adopt 6e when it comes out. He hadn't made any decision, but I believe that this was the final nail in that particular coffin. One of our players is working on getting a D&D streaming channel going, and is starting to see a bit of success... and this is a shot across his bow.
I'm pretty sure the new OGL doesn't affect streaming. That is part of the as-yet-unchanged Fan Content rules, if I'm not mistaken. The OGL is purely for static documents, like PDF files.
I'll be honest, whilst I dislike the terms I'm hearing of "WotC will own everything you have ever made", I am hesitant to think of it as the end of D&D. I agree that the 3rd party publishers are making the game more popular, but having spent a lot of time in the DMs Only section of this forum, I am pretty sure that over 90% of people who enjoy D&D do it for their own enjoyment, not to profit from it, and whenever you see a thread asking for help or feedback, it's never "I'm thinking of using monster X from kobold press book Y", it's always "I've made up a monster and I want to get feedback". I never see people say "I'm running this unoffical adventure and this happened, what do I do?", it's always "I'm running this official adventure" or "Im running my own homebrew campaign".
The OGL only affects people who are selling their D&D creativity online. 90% of D&D creativity is unpublished and lives in a folder in someones DMing bag, and is thrown away after they die. 99% of the worlds D&D has been played in has never, and will never, be published.
The creativity of the game will live on - people will just have to do it for themselves, which is what most people do anyway.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!