![]() ![]() It needs to be 10 feet or less since in combat medium creatures control a 5 foot square. No, not unless the enemy can either a) make a standing 5 foot high jump or b) has a reach weapon of some sort. And in a world inspired by the massive vaulted ceiling dungeon design, the epic scope, of things like LotR - do you REALLY want all your dungeons to be unimpressive and claustrophobic? It's certainly not the norm.Įven if the PC is flying in a 15 foot tall cave they can still be hit by something in melee. The vast majority of official modules have most of their encounters allowing this, plus (in my experience) the majority of campaigns as well. Just to be clear - you're arguing to include encounters that the Aarakocra can solo just to make them 'feel cool'? Do you do that for each other PC as well? And how would you do so?Īnd that's assuming that the flying PC has clear space over head to even get out of range. What's wrong with allowing a flying PC to feel cool for a fight now and again? Please instead reply in the ongoing threads rather than making new ones.įeel free to add to the community resource folder and the resource list. Limit Direct Response Posts - New posts that could reasonably serve as a reply to a different post that is in the top 40 of “Hot” may be removed by the moderators at their discretion. No low-effort/OC/image posts - Official sources, homebrew images, and new information/product photos are the exception. No D&D Beyond content sharing posts - DDB Content sharing is restricted to the weekly thread which you can find here For info on how to filter by flair on various apps and sites click here. ![]() For more information on which flair to use check here. Limit Homebrew - You may only post one new homebrew thread per day.Īll posts must be flaired - Submissions should be flaired with an appropriate flair. Limit self-promotional links - Any self-promotional external links (such as blogs, storefronts or Kickstarters) must be related to D&D and posted no more than once every 14 days. Text memes should be relevant to discussion. Use clear, concise title names - Titles must be clear, concise, and not worded in a misleading fashion.ĭo not post memes or joke posts - Meme images should be posted on /r/dndmemes. Do not suggest ways for such material to be obtained. Please respect the opinions of people who play differently than you do.ĭo not suggest piracy - Any non-fair use posts containing closed content from WotC or any third party will be removed. So, while all the possibilities mentioned in the answer by M are valid, it is additional possible that the version used by HOMM3 is not sufficiently close to the one copyrighted as part of AD&D for a copyright claim to prevail, or the WotC fears that it would not prevail, and so does not spend the money to try.A place to discuss the latest version of Dungeons & Dragons, the fifth edition, known during the playtest as D&D Next.īe civil to one another - Unacceptable behavior includes name calling, taunting, baiting, flaming, etc. That is always a matter of judgement, ultimately for a court in a copyright suit (or an appeals court). ![]() ![]() Merely calling a creature a "Beholder" is not enough to violate the copyright, there would need to be actual copying of the description, or a sufficiently detailed similarity to make the use an infringement. To the best of my knowledge there was no actual copyright suit, so the validity of the copyright was never tested in court, but it is probably valid. I believe one was from TSR, and one from WotC after they purchased TSR. There were at least two other RPGs that tried to use Beholders and other original creatures from the Monster Manual of D&D and dropped them after a cease and desist order from the copyright holders. WotC bought TSR and all its assets, including copyrights. The "Beholder" was originally invented as part of AD&D (2nd edition IIRC) and copyrighted by TSR (Gary Gygax and associates, essentially). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |