I'm leery of sources says type articles in general and don't want to buy into this just because the OGL stuff was bad. Initially I was willing to wait and see on the OGL stuff, but as they didn't respond and more and more people started confirming the same leak I was willing to believe it. So far on this its just him with this leak. Some of the videos implies they at least review some of the comments. Whether it is just super negative bubble choice ones, or maybe someone skims and sees if there is a common comment thread, or they actually read as much as they can, who knows but 0 reading seems a stretch given how they responded to the previous surveys.
It's been in the threads regarding surveys more than once: posters on this forum who work with data said that it's very, very, very unlikely that comments in the surveys are actually taken into consideration. Not to mention that when you get 40000 people submitting the surveys, who's gonna read all that?
If some of what he's saying in that video is true, that's pretty big when it comes to how we're supposed to view these surveys going forward.
That stuff about not reading the surveys has come up multiple times, it's been denied by WotC employees and there's actual evidence that it's false (as in, they seem to have done things that would require them to be reading comments somewhere), so my suspicion is that it's a disgruntled ex-employee with an axe to grind.
If some of what he's saying in that video is true, that's pretty big when it comes to how we're supposed to view these surveys going forward.
That stuff about not reading the surveys has come up multiple times, it's been denied by WotC employees and there's actual evidence that it's false (as in, they seem to have done things that would require them to be reading comments somewhere), so my suspicion is that it's a disgruntled ex-employee with an axe to grind.
Agreed about a disgruntled employee. Especially considering Ray Winnegar is going to bat for the Survey Process.
What I’m imagining now is that WotC’s management has finally listened to the Dev team and gone “Fine, how would you handle this?” With a frustrated sneer of derision. And someone on the dev team responds “with provable metrics”
I’m still 100% leary of this survey though; because after a read of the draft I still have no trust and while a few things are good a few more things aren’t.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
@gamephantomdm on twitter twitch.tv/gamephantomdm for me and some friends streaming D&D Wishing for the halcyon days of the WoTC D&D Board and hoping the DnDBeyond Forums can fill the hole in my heart left from the move to Gleemax and then dashing the lot of it for purely social media interaction.
I'm so burnt out on this I could barely get past the first paragraph.
Understandable, but that's the sad fact of activist and inequities of power - if you are going up against a person or entity with more power than you, you can only win if you have more persistence than they do.
In any case, here's some analysis by me and some of my smart friends - note none of us have insider information of WotC and aren't lawyers, but some of us work in the IT industry or work as mid-tier management inside big businesses. This is just our best guesses about what it going on, what this new OGL does and why.
First off, before I say anything nice about OGL 1.2 I want to point out the very first point made in the document is a lie and misleading:
The core D&D mechanics, which are located at pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages), are licensed to you under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). This means that Wizards is not placing any limitations at all on how you use that content.
CC Attribution requires creators using the content covered by the license to formally and clearly state that their work is based on the work of the creator of the original content. They are also explicitly not allowing exact reproduction of the text on those pages. This is in fact more limitations than WotC can actually enforce because as explained in the Legal Eagle video game mechanics cannot be copyrighted. So this is WotC putting stuff they have no copyright control over - that can be freely used and reused by anyone in any way without giving them any credit or acknowledgement at all - and telling people they need to give WotC credit for it, but framing it in a way to make it "seem" like they are releasing something to the community like Paizo's ORC. It is purely a PR stunt and they are putting it right at the top of the document to give people a warm fuzzy feeling so they will see the rest of the document through rose-coloured glasses.
Use of D&D content in virtual tabletops is allowed on the terms of Wizards’ Virtual Tabletop Policy.
This is the first substantial change, as with the previous iteration of the OGL, the OGL explicitly does not protect VTTs. VTTs now fall under a different policy that has none of the protections written into the OGL - e.g. the provision stopping WotC from changing OGL will not apply to the VTT Policy. We currently don't have access to the legal language of the VTT Policy but even just based on what is in this released document we have reason to worry:
What is permitted under this policy?
Using VTTs to replicate the experience of sitting around the table playing D&D with your friends. So displaying static SRD content is just fine because it’s just like looking in a sourcebook. You can put the text of Magic Missile up in your VTT and use it to calculate and apply damage to your target. And automating Magic Missile’s damage to replace manually rolling and calculating is also fine. The VTT can apply Magic Missile’s 1d4+1 damage automatically to your target’s hit points....What isn’t permitted are features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling. If you replace your imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target, or your VTT integrates our content into an NFT, that’s not the tabletop experience. That’s more like a video game.
Using an animation for a spell is NOT equivalent to a video game and WotC knows this (they really ought to know that NFTs aren't at all like a videogame either but they have some strange paranoid obsession with them). This is a clear indication that the VTT Policy will be designed to block competition with their own VTT as the WotC VTT's main difference from existing VTTs is the extensive use of animation. It seems highly likely that WotC have massively overspent on the development of their VTT and are now desperate for ways to ensure people use it and pay dearly for it so they can cover their costs and hopefully make some tidy profit off of it. This is almost certainly also why we have the leaks of $30 subscription fees to D&D Beyond.
I own or operate a VTT. How does this affect me? If you are a VTT owner or operator who supports OGL products on your platform, you have the same obligations for VTT content that any other website owner or operator has for copyrighted content under the DMCA.
This is a beautifully subtle threat to all VTT owners / operators that WotC will be cracking down on copyright infringing material on VTTs - whether that is content uploaded by the VTT or uploaded by players. How this will go it hard to know, but it could involve lawsuits to force VTTs into implementing algorithms to ID and block copyright infringing material similar to Youtube (or to bully those VTTs that don't have a deal with WotC into not supporting D&D content). Or it might be WotC using web-spiders to issue mass take-down notices to certain VTTs for user-uploaded infringing material. Or it might be an empty threat that WotC finds they can't enforce b/c individual games and content uploaded to them are not publicly available. It's hard to know, but is still indication that WotC wants to crack down of VTT competition.
You say this is a conversation. Does that mean this policy can change? Yes! We need your feedback as the tabletop space evolves. The potential of VTTs is tremendous and exciting, and we don’t want to harm their development.
This is another complete lie, by explicitly saying they will ban any animation of D&D content they are deliberately blocking VTT development.
NOTICE OF DEAUTHORIZATION OF OGL 1.0a. The Open Game License 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. This means that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after (effective date). It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content.
As expected OGL 1.0a is still dead. It is all but certain that killing OGL 1.0a will be part of the new OGL for two reason : (1) because of "backwards compatibility" there is no clear line between One D&D and 5e D&D so it would be extremely easy for people to continue using OGL 1.0a for One D&D compatible content which would make the new OGL utterly impotent. (2) because WotC is afraid One D&D is not sufficiently "better" from 5e to make people switch to the new system - if people don't switch then they have spent a ton of money developing the new version and printing books that isn't going to generate them any profit.
Ok now for the more positive? side:
No Royalties - this is a clear statement in OGL1.2 , creators will not have to pay royalties and WotC cannot easily change that. - this is a good thing.
WHAT YOU OWN. Your Licensed Works are yours. They may not be copied or used without your permission. You acknowledge that we and our licensees, as content creators ourselves, might independently come up with content similar to something you create. If you have a claim that we breached this provision, or that one of our licensees did in connection with content they licensed from us: DRAFT: FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Open Game License Version 1.2 Page 2 of 3 (a) Any such claim will be brought only as a lawsuit for breach of contract, and only for money damages. You expressly agree that money damages are an adequate remedy for such a breach, and that you will not seek or be entitled to injunctive relief. (b) In any such lawsuit, you must show that we knowingly and intentionally copied your Licensed Work. Access and substantial similarity will not be enough to prove a breach of this Section 3.
This is there "we won't steal your content" section. While it does indeed have no license back provision, it does require creators to surrender a large degree of their rights and ability to protect their work. Under the new OGL, if WotC do decide to steal your content you cannot stop them from using it, you can only require them to pay you damages due to their use of it - i.e. lost revenue b/c people are buying your content from WotC rather than from you. However, it is very unlikely that WotC would be stupid enough to steal your content word-for-word because clause (b) means that they can simply rewrite your content in their own words to make it nearly impossible for you to successfully sue them for stealing your content. You more or less need a WotC employee or internal memo stating that WotC deliberately simply rewrote your work into their own version to have any hope of successfully suing them for damages. Simply holding up the two works and saying they are identical in concept, idea, and implementation would be insufficient to win in court. It is definitely an improvement over the last version, but offers very little in terms of recourse to enforce their copyright for creators.
No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.
Ok last point, I promise : the Hatespeech clause... it's exactly what I expected to see : WotC can shut down any and all OGL content they deem offensive and you have no legal recourse to complain. While this seems draconian, it's pretty standard for content moderation policies b/c defining what is / isn't hateful content is extremely difficult and no content host wants to be dragged to court by hate-actors to debate hatespeech through legal proceedings.
Yes, game mechanics aren't copyrightable...in the United States. Affiliated Enterprises, Inc. v. Gruber (1936) and the Copyright Act (1976) do not apply internationally. Creative Commons does. And, as far as I can tell, this is the extent of CC BY 4.0. If anyone has a different link, I think we'd all benefit from seeing it.
Some stuff is standard practice, but it could use some revision. That's what the public feedback is for. This is a major step in the right direction.
No matter how much of an improvement this new version is, we should still take everything with a grain of salt. This entire situation reeks of the higher ups being tone deaf and are simply performing damage control and using others as scape goats/shields, which is what I am suspecting in the case of the executive producer, Kyle Blink.
Plus some of the language they are using still feels incredibly manipulative and deceptive. Really feels like they are trying to save face rather than being actually apolgetic. Could be that I am incredibly jaded, but I personally still have 0 trust in WotC.
What needs to be noted as well, is this OGL is still able to be revoked according to their wording. While they put the word "irrevocable" in the text they simultaneously REDEFINED it to mean (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license), the license itself is 100% still revocable. They could decide next year to de-authorize this one with no notice.
And they also can completely change what is in the SRD at ANY time, and you can't use an OLDER SRD
This license covers any content in the SRD 5.1 (or any subsequent version of the SRD we release under this license)
It says OR any later SRD instead of AND any future SRD so they could just remove 90% of what is in the SRD so you can't make a new subclass for Sorcerer anymore or something.
+ it provides anti-protection for the third party publishers. Essentially it says we can steal your work and you have to PROVE that we stole it instead of coming up with it ourselves... BUT, if you accidentally make something similar to another third party person you have no rights.
There is also a clause that doesn't seem enforceable about preventing people for suing them for wrongful termination because they decide what is harmful in any vague way possible, AND if any portion of the contract is unenforceable they can terminate the entire license WITHOUT notice. 1.0a just allowed them to alter an unenforceable clause to be enforceable.
This agreement is garbage, and they are really trying some sneaky stuff with this one.
What needs to be noted as well, is this OGL is still able to be revoked according to their wording. While they put the word "irrevocable" in the text they simultaneously REDEFINED it to mean (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license), the license itself is 100% still revocable. They could decide next year to de-authorize this one with no notice.
And they also can completely change what is in the SRD at ANY time, and you can't use an OLDER SRD
This license covers any content in the SRD 5.1 (or any subsequent version of the SRD we release under this license)
It says OR any later SRD instead of AND any future SRD so they could just remove 90% of what is in the SRD so you can't make a new subclass for Sorcerer anymore or something.
+ it provides anti-protection for the third party publishers. Essentially it says we can steal your work and you have to PROVE that we stole it instead of coming up with it ourselves... BUT, if you accidentally make something similar to another third party person you have no rights.
There is also a clause that doesn't seem enforceable about preventing people for suing them for wrongful termination because they decide what is harmful in any vague way possible, AND if any portion of the contract is unenforceable they can terminate the entire license WITHOUT notice. 1.0a just allowed them to alter an unenforceable clause to be enforceable.
This agreement is garbage, and they are really trying some sneaky stuff with this one.
That's not entirely true. You need to look at the entire document. Even with irrevocable licenses, it's standard practice to state under the terms it can be terminated. Because even irrevocable licenses can still be terminated. They cannot simply be deauthorized on a whim.
Licensed content cannot be deauthorized. That means it can continue to be used with any authorized SRD; even if the content from one SRD to another changes. You absolutely can use an older, authorized SRD. We currently use 5.1, so the only pressing concern is the 3.5 SRD. And WotC is already looking at putting all of that under Creative Commons.
The document suggests consulting a lawyer at the end. That's good advice. Make sure yours knows what they're talking about. Not every lawyer agrees on what this means. Seeing something in parentheses doesn't necessarily mean they're attempting to redefine anything. A lot of people still insist "perpetual" means the same as "irrevocable," and they're just wrong. Clarification was, and likely still is, in order.
The law is the law, and WotC can't circumvent that.
The Rules Lawyer broke down the changes better, imo. I'm still skeptical, and will play the "watch and wait" game until I see what comes out and whether I spend another dime on WotC products again. I already don't play MtG anymore because of the insane power creep that has made it into the game since they started putting out so many new sets so close together.
I will not be using One Dnd as what I have seen so far just doesn't impress me. Nerfing spell casters to make martial classes feel better is the wrong way to go about bringing balance to the game. Why not buff the martial classes to bring them up to par instead? Then there is the nerfing of the spell lists to make it feel very homogenized and lack of unique identity to the classes. Lastly if you are wanting to nerf spiritual weapon in cleric then allow for a second attack or secondary cantrip use in a given turn.
I'm not convinced you actually know what "nerf" means in this context. Few spells changes have been suggested. Some are stronger. Others appear weaker, but in the service of making a meaningful choice. Like it or not, spiritual weapon currently isn't really a choice. It's too good, so it needs to be rebalanced. Making it require concentration, at the cost of dealing increased damage, is a trade-off worth exploring.
And a lot of spellcasters can know and prepare more spells than before. That's a pure gain in power.
The Rules Lawyer broke down the changes better, imo. I'm still skeptical, and will play the "watch and wait" game until I see what comes out and whether I spend another dime on WotC products again. I already don't play MtG anymore because of the insane power creep that has made it into the game since they started putting out so many new sets so close together.
He's a crusader, which already has me skeptical of him and his motives, and being a barred attorney is...something, at least. First, not every lawyer agrees on every issue, and some are downright idiots. Second, I don't actually recall if he's a specialist in trademarks, copyrights, and licensing. And even if he were, that doesn't make him an authority figure. I certainly don't think he's working for a firm that demands his attention. He's outputting so many videos I wonder how much time he's actually spending practicing law. His activities lead me to think he's independent, and that's fine. He can afford to crusade if he has no bosses to keep happy. But it also means he might not spend a lot of time, well, lawyering. Court proceedings are generally predictable because the interpretation and enforcement of the law relies on consistency. But you have to read and practice the law to keep up on that.
Currently, he's in a "feud" with Linda Codega because he's taking issue with their most recent article. Codega is still reporting the draft 1.2 is irrevocable─a conclusion they reached after consulting different attorneys─while TRL insists otherwise. Not only that, he's publicly calling for a correction. He's also stepped up to defend DnD_Shorts after the false reporting over WotC staff not reading feedback surveys. And he does shout outs to people like Indestructoboy, which might be fine. But I have a serious problem with anyone who outputs 20+ videos a month. That's living perpetually online. And at that point, you're in a bubble.
Who you choose to associate with says a lot about you. I don't like what his contacts say about him.
I'm not convinced you actually know what "nerf" means in this context. Few spells changes have been suggested. Some are stronger. Others appear weaker, but in the service of making a meaningful choice. Like it or not, spiritual weapon currently isn't really a choice. It's too good, so it needs to be rebalanced. Making it require concentration, at the cost of dealing increased damage, is a trade-off worth exploring.
And a lot of spellcasters can know and prepare more spells than before. That's a pure gain in power.
Let's agree to disagree as the concentration for a cleric is a very big deal. Right now there are over 39 spells (46 if you include the Tasha's additions) a cleric uses that require concentration. Juggling those active to either buff party members or do damage can be a headache. However in the topic of doing damage options are a lot smaller in that selection of concentration spells especially when it concerns bonus action damage. It is considered a cleric's secondary attack for many. I suppose if Spiritual Weapon is to be nerfed then giving clerics a method within their class to cast two cantrips a turn would make up for the loss of damage.
Yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Damage isn't everything, and choices should matter.
Choices do matter as does play styles as a cleric of the tempest, light, or more combative domain are more oriented toward damage. As to their play styles by nerfing Spiritual Weapon to require concentration that in all lowers that overall DPR and discourage players from wanting to play a damage oriented cleric build. It is this nerf that has caused a limitation to the choices a player can make in the course of cleric builds.
Now if Spiritual Weapon nerf does remain then a compensation to this damage loss would be in order. My suggestion to offer a bonus action cantrip cast would work if said ability was tied to a cleric order. It would make it so not every cleric could do it but still remain an option for those that wish to go that route. Thus player agency and choice is further maintained in the new write up of the rules.
Yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Damage isn't everything, and choices should matter.
Choices do matter as does play styles as a cleric of the tempest, light, or more combative domain are more oriented toward damage. As to their play styles by nerfing Spiritual Weapon to require concentration that in all lowers that overall DPR and discourage players from wanting to play a damage oriented cleric build. It is this nerf that has caused a limitation to the choices a player can make in the course of cleric builds.
Now if Spiritual Weapon nerf does remain then a compensation to this damage loss would be in order. My suggestion to offer a bonus action cantrip cast would work if said ability was tied to a cleric order. It would make it so not every cleric could do it but still remain an option for those that wish to go that route. Thus player agency and choice is further maintained in the new write up of the rules.
Users are great at identifying problems, but they're not good at coming up with solutions. Presently, I can name two big issues with spiritual weapon.
It is almost always prepared. As a spell that doesn't require concentration, casting it in the first round became standard practice through many an adventure. As a 2nd-level spell, future options should eventually replace it. At the very least, they should appear attractive and compete for both the slot and action economy.
It didn't actually help "damage-oriented" subclasses. Every single cleric had access to both it and spirit guardians. This became a basic, go-to combination from 5th-level onward for many. And that's just boring.
Labeling a subclass as "damage-oriented" is a misnomer. Both of the subclasses you mentioned have a fair bit of control, debuff, and support mixed in.
I don't think you're advocating for the spell to remain as it is, or for a bonus action cantrip. I think you want it to be a baseline feature of the class. And that would only exacerbate the issue.
Yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Damage isn't everything, and choices should matter.
Choices do matter as does play styles as a cleric of the tempest, light, or more combative domain are more oriented toward damage. As to their play styles by nerfing Spiritual Weapon to require concentration that in all lowers that overall DPR and discourage players from wanting to play a damage oriented cleric build. It is this nerf that has caused a limitation to the choices a player can make in the course of cleric builds.
Now if Spiritual Weapon nerf does remain then a compensation to this damage loss would be in order. My suggestion to offer a bonus action cantrip cast would work if said ability was tied to a cleric order. It would make it so not every cleric could do it but still remain an option for those that wish to go that route. Thus player agency and choice is further maintained in the new write up of the rules.
Users are great at identifying problems, but they're not good at coming up with solutions. Presently, I can name two big issues with spiritual weapon.
It is almost always prepared. As a spell that doesn't require concentration, casting it in the first round became standard practice through many an adventure. As a 2nd-level spell, future options should eventually replace it. At the very least, they should appear attractive and compete for both the slot and action economy.
It didn't actually help "damage-oriented" subclasses. Every single cleric had access to both it and spirit guardians. This became a basic, go-to combination from 5th-level onward for many. And that's just boring.
Labeling a subclass as "damage-oriented" is a misnomer. Both of the subclasses you mentioned have a fair bit of control, debuff, and support mixed in.
I don't think you're advocating for the spell to remain as it is, or for a bonus action cantrip. I think you want it to be a baseline feature of the class. And that would only exacerbate the issue.
100% agree. Both Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians need a nerf, largely because they are such a go-to combination that they actually hurt the diversity of builds & flavour of different cleric subclasses because they mean that subclasses never actually use their subclass spells : Tempest Clerics get Call Lightning as an offensive 3rd level spell but almost never ever use it b/c Spirit Guardians costs them the same and is just better... Order Clerics get Slow - another great flavourful 3rd level spell but never use it b/c Spirit Guardians is better.. Twilight Clerics get Moonbeam - again good flavourful spell, that never gets used after level 3 b/c Spirit Guardians is better... Same with War domain and Crusader's Mantle.
Now I kind of understand why Cleric was designed this way: Clerics specialize in support which requires have a lot of situational healing & status effect removal spells prepared so they don't want to have to prepare 4-5 different combat spells in addition to their support spells, so it does kind of make sense for them to have one or two go-to offensive spells. But having these low level spells be so good that many clerics never bother casting 4th or 5th level spells, just up casting SG / SW isn't good for the game.. it makes Clerics really boring and erases a lot of the flavour put into the subclasses.
In my group the Battlemaster with Great Weapon Fighter and Polearm Master is easily the superstar. Sure some Fireballs or Black Tentacles have made for some hilariously short combats but dang.
I'm not convinced you actually know what "nerf" means in this context. Few spells changes have been suggested. Some are stronger. Others appear weaker, but in the service of making a meaningful choice. Like it or not, spiritual weapon currently isn't really a choice. It's too good, so it needs to be rebalanced. Making it require concentration, at the cost of dealing increased damage, is a trade-off worth exploring.
And a lot of spellcasters can know and prepare more spells than before. That's a pure gain in power.
It wasn't too good. Too good means it is too powerful for the overall game balance. If the power level of Spiritual Weapon is within the overall power balance of the game, but other spells are not up to par, then it is a case of the other spells being underpowered.
Yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Damage isn't everything, and choices should matter.
Choices do matter as does play styles as a cleric of the tempest, light, or more combative domain are more oriented toward damage. As to their play styles by nerfing Spiritual Weapon to require concentration that in all lowers that overall DPR and discourage players from wanting to play a damage oriented cleric build. It is this nerf that has caused a limitation to the choices a player can make in the course of cleric builds.
Now if Spiritual Weapon nerf does remain then a compensation to this damage loss would be in order. My suggestion to offer a bonus action cantrip cast would work if said ability was tied to a cleric order. It would make it so not every cleric could do it but still remain an option for those that wish to go that route. Thus player agency and choice is further maintained in the new write up of the rules.
Users are great at identifying problems, but they're not good at coming up with solutions. Presently, I can name two big issues with spiritual weapon.
It is almost always prepared. As a spell that doesn't require concentration, casting it in the first round became standard practice through many an adventure. As a 2nd-level spell, future options should eventually replace it. At the very least, they should appear attractive and compete for both the slot and action economy.
It didn't actually help "damage-oriented" subclasses. Every single cleric had access to both it and spirit guardians. This became a basic, go-to combination from 5th-level onward for many. And that's just boring.
Labeling a subclass as "damage-oriented" is a misnomer. Both of the subclasses you mentioned have a fair bit of control, debuff, and support mixed in.
I don't think you're advocating for the spell to remain as it is, or for a bonus action cantrip. I think you want it to be a baseline feature of the class. And that would only exacerbate the issue.
100% agree. Both Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians need a nerf, largely because they are such a go-to combination that they actually hurt the diversity of builds & flavour of different cleric subclasses because they mean that subclasses never actually use their subclass spells : Tempest Clerics get Call Lightning as an offensive 3rd level spell but almost never ever use it b/c Spirit Guardians costs them the same and is just better... Order Clerics get Slow - another great flavourful 3rd level spell but never use it b/c Spirit Guardians is better.. Twilight Clerics get Moonbeam - again good flavourful spell, that never gets used after level 3 b/c Spirit Guardians is better... Same with War domain and Crusader's Mantle.
Now I kind of understand why Cleric was designed this way: Clerics specialize in support which requires have a lot of situational healing & status effect removal spells prepared so they don't want to have to prepare 4-5 different combat spells in addition to their support spells, so it does kind of make sense for them to have one or two go-to offensive spells. But having these low level spells be so good that many clerics never bother casting 4th or 5th level spells, just up casting SG / SW isn't good for the game.. it makes Clerics really boring and erases a lot of the flavour put into the subclasses.
I largely disagree with needing to nerf those spells. Even in 5E I still see other spells being used and those spells are still well within the intended power range for 5E.
However, isn't this discussion a bit off topic? This thread should be more about the OGL shouldn't it? Or did I miss something?
I'm not convinced you actually know what "nerf" means in this context. Few spells changes have been suggested. Some are stronger. Others appear weaker, but in the service of making a meaningful choice. Like it or not, spiritual weapon currently isn't really a choice. It's too good, so it needs to be rebalanced. Making it require concentration, at the cost of dealing increased damage, is a trade-off worth exploring.
And a lot of spellcasters can know and prepare more spells than before. That's a pure gain in power.
It wasn't too good. Too good means it is too powerful for the overall game balance. If the power level of Spiritual Weapon is within the overall power balance of the game, but other spells are not up to par, then it is a case of the other spells being underpowered.
Yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Damage isn't everything, and choices should matter.
Choices do matter as does play styles as a cleric of the tempest, light, or more combative domain are more oriented toward damage. As to their play styles by nerfing Spiritual Weapon to require concentration that in all lowers that overall DPR and discourage players from wanting to play a damage oriented cleric build. It is this nerf that has caused a limitation to the choices a player can make in the course of cleric builds.
Now if Spiritual Weapon nerf does remain then a compensation to this damage loss would be in order. My suggestion to offer a bonus action cantrip cast would work if said ability was tied to a cleric order. It would make it so not every cleric could do it but still remain an option for those that wish to go that route. Thus player agency and choice is further maintained in the new write up of the rules.
Users are great at identifying problems, but they're not good at coming up with solutions. Presently, I can name two big issues with spiritual weapon.
It is almost always prepared. As a spell that doesn't require concentration, casting it in the first round became standard practice through many an adventure. As a 2nd-level spell, future options should eventually replace it. At the very least, they should appear attractive and compete for both the slot and action economy.
It didn't actually help "damage-oriented" subclasses. Every single cleric had access to both it and spirit guardians. This became a basic, go-to combination from 5th-level onward for many. And that's just boring.
Labeling a subclass as "damage-oriented" is a misnomer. Both of the subclasses you mentioned have a fair bit of control, debuff, and support mixed in.
I don't think you're advocating for the spell to remain as it is, or for a bonus action cantrip. I think you want it to be a baseline feature of the class. And that would only exacerbate the issue.
100% agree. Both Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians need a nerf, largely because they are such a go-to combination that they actually hurt the diversity of builds & flavour of different cleric subclasses because they mean that subclasses never actually use their subclass spells : Tempest Clerics get Call Lightning as an offensive 3rd level spell but almost never ever use it b/c Spirit Guardians costs them the same and is just better... Order Clerics get Slow - another great flavourful 3rd level spell but never use it b/c Spirit Guardians is better.. Twilight Clerics get Moonbeam - again good flavourful spell, that never gets used after level 3 b/c Spirit Guardians is better... Same with War domain and Crusader's Mantle.
Now I kind of understand why Cleric was designed this way: Clerics specialize in support which requires have a lot of situational healing & status effect removal spells prepared so they don't want to have to prepare 4-5 different combat spells in addition to their support spells, so it does kind of make sense for them to have one or two go-to offensive spells. But having these low level spells be so good that many clerics never bother casting 4th or 5th level spells, just up casting SG / SW isn't good for the game.. it makes Clerics really boring and erases a lot of the flavour put into the subclasses.
I largely disagree with needing to nerf those spells. Even in 5E I still see other spells being used and those spells are still well within the intended power range for 5E.
However, isn't this discussion a bit off topic? This thread should be more about the OGL shouldn't it? Or did I miss something?
Agreed, I suppose that was my fault on the divergent topic. But you are not wrong in that those spells didn't need a nerf and they are well within the intended power area of 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's been in the threads regarding surveys more than once: posters on this forum who work with data said that it's very, very, very unlikely that comments in the surveys are actually taken into consideration. Not to mention that when you get 40000 people submitting the surveys, who's gonna read all that?
That stuff about not reading the surveys has come up multiple times, it's been denied by WotC employees and there's actual evidence that it's false (as in, they seem to have done things that would require them to be reading comments somewhere), so my suspicion is that it's a disgruntled ex-employee with an axe to grind.
Agreed about a disgruntled employee. Especially considering Ray Winnegar is going to bat for the Survey Process.
What I’m imagining now is that WotC’s management has finally listened to the Dev team and gone “Fine, how would you handle this?” With a frustrated sneer of derision. And someone on the dev team responds “with provable metrics”
I’m still 100% leary of this survey though; because after a read of the draft I still have no trust and while a few things are good a few more things aren’t.
@gamephantomdm on twitter
twitch.tv/gamephantomdm for me and some friends streaming D&D
Wishing for the halcyon days of the WoTC D&D Board and hoping the DnDBeyond Forums can fill the hole in my heart left from the move to Gleemax and then dashing the lot of it for purely social media interaction.
Understandable, but that's the sad fact of activist and inequities of power - if you are going up against a person or entity with more power than you, you can only win if you have more persistence than they do.
In any case, here's some analysis by me and some of my smart friends - note none of us have insider information of WotC and aren't lawyers, but some of us work in the IT industry or work as mid-tier management inside big businesses. This is just our best guesses about what it going on, what this new OGL does and why.
First off, before I say anything nice about OGL 1.2 I want to point out the very first point made in the document is a lie and misleading:
CC Attribution requires creators using the content covered by the license to formally and clearly state that their work is based on the work of the creator of the original content. They are also explicitly not allowing exact reproduction of the text on those pages. This is in fact more limitations than WotC can actually enforce because as explained in the Legal Eagle video game mechanics cannot be copyrighted. So this is WotC putting stuff they have no copyright control over - that can be freely used and reused by anyone in any way without giving them any credit or acknowledgement at all - and telling people they need to give WotC credit for it, but framing it in a way to make it "seem" like they are releasing something to the community like Paizo's ORC. It is purely a PR stunt and they are putting it right at the top of the document to give people a warm fuzzy feeling so they will see the rest of the document through rose-coloured glasses.
This is the first substantial change, as with the previous iteration of the OGL, the OGL explicitly does not protect VTTs. VTTs now fall under a different policy that has none of the protections written into the OGL - e.g. the provision stopping WotC from changing OGL will not apply to the VTT Policy. We currently don't have access to the legal language of the VTT Policy but even just based on what is in this released document we have reason to worry:
Using an animation for a spell is NOT equivalent to a video game and WotC knows this (they really ought to know that NFTs aren't at all like a videogame either but they have some strange paranoid obsession with them). This is a clear indication that the VTT Policy will be designed to block competition with their own VTT as the WotC VTT's main difference from existing VTTs is the extensive use of animation. It seems highly likely that WotC have massively overspent on the development of their VTT and are now desperate for ways to ensure people use it and pay dearly for it so they can cover their costs and hopefully make some tidy profit off of it. This is almost certainly also why we have the leaks of $30 subscription fees to D&D Beyond.
This is a beautifully subtle threat to all VTT owners / operators that WotC will be cracking down on copyright infringing material on VTTs - whether that is content uploaded by the VTT or uploaded by players. How this will go it hard to know, but it could involve lawsuits to force VTTs into implementing algorithms to ID and block copyright infringing material similar to Youtube (or to bully those VTTs that don't have a deal with WotC into not supporting D&D content). Or it might be WotC using web-spiders to issue mass take-down notices to certain VTTs for user-uploaded infringing material. Or it might be an empty threat that WotC finds they can't enforce b/c individual games and content uploaded to them are not publicly available. It's hard to know, but is still indication that WotC wants to crack down of VTT competition.
This is another complete lie, by explicitly saying they will ban any animation of D&D content they are deliberately blocking VTT development.
As expected OGL 1.0a is still dead. It is all but certain that killing OGL 1.0a will be part of the new OGL for two reason :
(1) because of "backwards compatibility" there is no clear line between One D&D and 5e D&D so it would be extremely easy for people to continue using OGL 1.0a for One D&D compatible content which would make the new OGL utterly impotent.
(2) because WotC is afraid One D&D is not sufficiently "better" from 5e to make people switch to the new system - if people don't switch then they have spent a ton of money developing the new version and printing books that isn't going to generate them any profit.
Ok now for the more positive? side:
No Royalties - this is a clear statement in OGL1.2 , creators will not have to pay royalties and WotC cannot easily change that. - this is a good thing.
This is there "we won't steal your content" section. While it does indeed have no license back provision, it does require creators to surrender a large degree of their rights and ability to protect their work. Under the new OGL, if WotC do decide to steal your content you cannot stop them from using it, you can only require them to pay you damages due to their use of it - i.e. lost revenue b/c people are buying your content from WotC rather than from you. However, it is very unlikely that WotC would be stupid enough to steal your content word-for-word because clause (b) means that they can simply rewrite your content in their own words to make it nearly impossible for you to successfully sue them for stealing your content. You more or less need a WotC employee or internal memo stating that WotC deliberately simply rewrote your work into their own version to have any hope of successfully suing them for damages. Simply holding up the two works and saying they are identical in concept, idea, and implementation would be insufficient to win in court. It is definitely an improvement over the last version, but offers very little in terms of recourse to enforce their copyright for creators.
Ok last point, I promise : the Hatespeech clause... it's exactly what I expected to see : WotC can shut down any and all OGL content they deem offensive and you have no legal recourse to complain. While this seems draconian, it's pretty standard for content moderation policies b/c defining what is / isn't hateful content is extremely difficult and no content host wants to be dragged to court by hate-actors to debate hatespeech through legal proceedings.
Yes, game mechanics aren't copyrightable...in the United States. Affiliated Enterprises, Inc. v. Gruber (1936) and the Copyright Act (1976) do not apply internationally. Creative Commons does. And, as far as I can tell, this is the extent of CC BY 4.0. If anyone has a different link, I think we'd all benefit from seeing it.
Some stuff is standard practice, but it could use some revision. That's what the public feedback is for. This is a major step in the right direction.
No matter how much of an improvement this new version is, we should still take everything with a grain of salt. This entire situation reeks of the higher ups being tone deaf and are simply performing damage control and using others as scape goats/shields, which is what I am suspecting in the case of the executive producer, Kyle Blink.
Plus some of the language they are using still feels incredibly manipulative and deceptive. Really feels like they are trying to save face rather than being actually apolgetic. Could be that I am incredibly jaded, but I personally still have 0 trust in WotC.
What needs to be noted as well, is this OGL is still able to be revoked according to their wording. While they put the word "irrevocable" in the text they simultaneously REDEFINED it to mean (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license), the license itself is 100% still revocable. They could decide next year to de-authorize this one with no notice.
And they also can completely change what is in the SRD at ANY time, and you can't use an OLDER SRD
This license covers any content in the SRD 5.1 (or any subsequent version of the SRD we release under this license)
It says OR any later SRD instead of AND any future SRD so they could just remove 90% of what is in the SRD so you can't make a new subclass for Sorcerer anymore or something.
+ it provides anti-protection for the third party publishers. Essentially it says we can steal your work and you have to PROVE that we stole it instead of coming up with it ourselves... BUT, if you accidentally make something similar to another third party person you have no rights.
There is also a clause that doesn't seem enforceable about preventing people for suing them for wrongful termination because they decide what is harmful in any vague way possible, AND if any portion of the contract is unenforceable they can terminate the entire license WITHOUT notice. 1.0a just allowed them to alter an unenforceable clause to be enforceable.
This agreement is garbage, and they are really trying some sneaky stuff with this one.
That's not entirely true. You need to look at the entire document. Even with irrevocable licenses, it's standard practice to state under the terms it can be terminated. Because even irrevocable licenses can still be terminated. They cannot simply be deauthorized on a whim.
Licensed content cannot be deauthorized. That means it can continue to be used with any authorized SRD; even if the content from one SRD to another changes. You absolutely can use an older, authorized SRD. We currently use 5.1, so the only pressing concern is the 3.5 SRD. And WotC is already looking at putting all of that under Creative Commons.
The document suggests consulting a lawyer at the end. That's good advice. Make sure yours knows what they're talking about. Not every lawyer agrees on what this means. Seeing something in parentheses doesn't necessarily mean they're attempting to redefine anything. A lot of people still insist "perpetual" means the same as "irrevocable," and they're just wrong. Clarification was, and likely still is, in order.
The law is the law, and WotC can't circumvent that.
The Rules Lawyer broke down the changes better, imo. I'm still skeptical, and will play the "watch and wait" game until I see what comes out and whether I spend another dime on WotC products again. I already don't play MtG anymore because of the insane power creep that has made it into the game since they started putting out so many new sets so close together.
I will not be using One Dnd as what I have seen so far just doesn't impress me. Nerfing spell casters to make martial classes feel better is the wrong way to go about bringing balance to the game. Why not buff the martial classes to bring them up to par instead? Then there is the nerfing of the spell lists to make it feel very homogenized and lack of unique identity to the classes. Lastly if you are wanting to nerf spiritual weapon in cleric then allow for a second attack or secondary cantrip use in a given turn.
I'm not convinced you actually know what "nerf" means in this context. Few spells changes have been suggested. Some are stronger. Others appear weaker, but in the service of making a meaningful choice. Like it or not, spiritual weapon currently isn't really a choice. It's too good, so it needs to be rebalanced. Making it require concentration, at the cost of dealing increased damage, is a trade-off worth exploring.
And a lot of spellcasters can know and prepare more spells than before. That's a pure gain in power.
He's a crusader, which already has me skeptical of him and his motives, and being a barred attorney is...something, at least. First, not every lawyer agrees on every issue, and some are downright idiots. Second, I don't actually recall if he's a specialist in trademarks, copyrights, and licensing. And even if he were, that doesn't make him an authority figure. I certainly don't think he's working for a firm that demands his attention. He's outputting so many videos I wonder how much time he's actually spending practicing law. His activities lead me to think he's independent, and that's fine. He can afford to crusade if he has no bosses to keep happy. But it also means he might not spend a lot of time, well, lawyering. Court proceedings are generally predictable because the interpretation and enforcement of the law relies on consistency. But you have to read and practice the law to keep up on that.
Currently, he's in a "feud" with Linda Codega because he's taking issue with their most recent article. Codega is still reporting the draft 1.2 is irrevocable─a conclusion they reached after consulting different attorneys─while TRL insists otherwise. Not only that, he's publicly calling for a correction. He's also stepped up to defend DnD_Shorts after the false reporting over WotC staff not reading feedback surveys. And he does shout outs to people like Indestructoboy, which might be fine. But I have a serious problem with anyone who outputs 20+ videos a month. That's living perpetually online. And at that point, you're in a bubble.
Who you choose to associate with says a lot about you. I don't like what his contacts say about him.
Let's agree to disagree as the concentration for a cleric is a very big deal. Right now there are over 39 spells (46 if you include the Tasha's additions) a cleric uses that require concentration. Juggling those active to either buff party members or do damage can be a headache. However in the topic of doing damage options are a lot smaller in that selection of concentration spells especially when it concerns bonus action damage. It is considered a cleric's secondary attack for many. I suppose if Spiritual Weapon is to be nerfed then giving clerics a method within their class to cast two cantrips a turn would make up for the loss of damage.
Yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Damage isn't everything, and choices should matter.
Choices do matter as does play styles as a cleric of the tempest, light, or more combative domain are more oriented toward damage. As to their play styles by nerfing Spiritual Weapon to require concentration that in all lowers that overall DPR and discourage players from wanting to play a damage oriented cleric build. It is this nerf that has caused a limitation to the choices a player can make in the course of cleric builds.
Now if Spiritual Weapon nerf does remain then a compensation to this damage loss would be in order. My suggestion to offer a bonus action cantrip cast would work if said ability was tied to a cleric order. It would make it so not every cleric could do it but still remain an option for those that wish to go that route. Thus player agency and choice is further maintained in the new write up of the rules.
Users are great at identifying problems, but they're not good at coming up with solutions. Presently, I can name two big issues with spiritual weapon.
I don't think you're advocating for the spell to remain as it is, or for a bonus action cantrip. I think you want it to be a baseline feature of the class. And that would only exacerbate the issue.
100% agree. Both Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians need a nerf, largely because they are such a go-to combination that they actually hurt the diversity of builds & flavour of different cleric subclasses because they mean that subclasses never actually use their subclass spells : Tempest Clerics get Call Lightning as an offensive 3rd level spell but almost never ever use it b/c Spirit Guardians costs them the same and is just better... Order Clerics get Slow - another great flavourful 3rd level spell but never use it b/c Spirit Guardians is better.. Twilight Clerics get Moonbeam - again good flavourful spell, that never gets used after level 3 b/c Spirit Guardians is better... Same with War domain and Crusader's Mantle.
Now I kind of understand why Cleric was designed this way: Clerics specialize in support which requires have a lot of situational healing & status effect removal spells prepared so they don't want to have to prepare 4-5 different combat spells in addition to their support spells, so it does kind of make sense for them to have one or two go-to offensive spells. But having these low level spells be so good that many clerics never bother casting 4th or 5th level spells, just up casting SG / SW isn't good for the game.. it makes Clerics really boring and erases a lot of the flavour put into the subclasses.
LOL martial caster imbalance?
In my group the Battlemaster with Great Weapon Fighter and Polearm Master is easily the superstar. Sure some Fireballs or Black Tentacles have made for some hilariously short combats but dang.
It wasn't too good. Too good means it is too powerful for the overall game balance. If the power level of Spiritual Weapon is within the overall power balance of the game, but other spells are not up to par, then it is a case of the other spells being underpowered.
I largely disagree with needing to nerf those spells. Even in 5E I still see other spells being used and those spells are still well within the intended power range for 5E.
However, isn't this discussion a bit off topic? This thread should be more about the OGL shouldn't it? Or did I miss something?
Agreed, I suppose that was my fault on the divergent topic. But you are not wrong in that those spells didn't need a nerf and they are well within the intended power area of 5e.