dnd 5e – Can artificer subclasses be in (third-party) material published under the OGL?

This is a duck

A duck

You can label it a chicken if you like but you won’t fool anyone who knows about ducks.

The artificer is protected by copyright and trade mark law. Ham-fistedly obfuscating it by referring to it obliquely doesn’t circumvent that protection.

Because you expanding on the protected works of WotC, you can only do this if you have permission (a licence) or a legal exemption.

The artificer is not part of the material that is covered by the OGL – it only applies to materials that are in the System Reference Document:

The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License.

Anything you release pertaining to the artificer cannot be under the OGL. Therefore, to be legal, you must be relying on some other legal basis. You don’t have permission of the copyright holder so you must be relying on fair use or the considerably narrower exemptions that apply outside the United States.

It’s always difficult to say if a particular use case is fair use since it relies on a balancing of factors. However, it’s likely this is not fair use as it’s a public exploitation of a commercially valuable property in a way similar to the way the copyright owner exploits their own property – adding subclasses is what WotC do to make money from their D&D property (among other things).

osr – Can I copy verbatim text of a game declared as Open Game Content under the OGL License?

I am not a lawyer, I am certainly not your lawyer, and I have not examined the details of your specific case. This answer is meant to be educational, based on my understanding as someone who has worked under the OGL (but not as someone who has been responsible for ensuring the OGL compliance of our work). Especially if your motivation is primarily profit, you may wish to speak with a lawyer before pursuing this, as otherwise you will be assuming the risks associated with your actions (e.g. in the event that I am wrong about anything).

That out of the way, here’s my understanding:

You can copy the full text of Open Game Content, verbatim, freely or for profit. This much I am pretty confident in—there are a lot of copies of Open Game Content out there that are not associated with the original copyright holder. E.g. d20pfsrd.com hosts Open Game Content from Pathfinder by Paizo, but is unaffiliated with Paizo. There has even, at times, been some tensions between the two, but Paizo hasn’t claimed that d20pfsrd.com is not allowed to host the Open Game Content that it does. And Pathfinder 1e itself is based on Open Game Content from Wizards of the Coast, and despite Pathfinder being the primary competition for D&D, Wizards hasn’t sued Paizo over selling Pathfinder. So copying the full, verbatim text of Open Game Content should be no problem, nor should selling it.

However, I believe you are limited in that any “derivative work” you create from Open Game Content will also be Open Game Content. That means anyone can take what you make and upload it on a website for free, even if you would prefer people buy it from you, potentially limiting your sales.

(Realistically, with piracy being as prevalent as it is, anyone choosing to pay you for your work is basically volunteering to do so regardless. Even if your work is entirely original and cannot be copied or distributed legally by anyone, it still will be. So it might not make that much difference.)

The exceptions here are Product Identity, which can cover a fair few things—characters, spells, items, and similar elements can be declared Product Identity and then would have to be left out of any legal copy of your work. Artwork and other graphical elements are likewise usually Product Identity, so people couldn’t legally just put your entire PDF up online, even if all of the text is Open Game Content.

Luckily for you, Product Identity can include “trade dress,” which I believe would include the design of your cards. Therefore it’s unlikely that anyone could directly copy your work here—and may mean your product will have value in the marketplace.

Does an OGL Version of D6-Legend exist?

I’m wondering. I saw a few references that aside from the normal D6 also D6 legend could be OGL. (d6that is success based and 5+ is a success).

When I searched I stumbled only over one single book there that didn’t seem very official and deviated greatly from d6 legend as it had 3+ as a success.

So my question is: is there a OGL variant of d6 legend?

ogl – What editions of D&D are derived from the d20 system?

You’re conflating several issues.

The d20 System is a system of rules. D&D 3e and 3.5e are based on it, but go well beyond the foundation that the d20 System provides. D&D 4e and 5e use d20s as a core resolution engine, but they aren’t especially related to the d20 System.

Much of the d20 System, as well as the core books and a few select supplements for D&D 3e and D&D 3.5e, are available in the form of a “System Reference Document,” or SRD, which are licensed under the OGL. This licensing allows others to use the licensed copyright material under certain provisions, which are mostly not terribly onerous (it mostly means including a copy of the OGL in your work, correctly filled out with what OGL sources you’re using, and respecting things labeled “Product Identity”). This allowed for a profusion of third-party content for 3e and 3.5e, and many other games are also available under the OGL—for an obvious example, pretty much every mechanical aspect of Pathfinder is available under the OGL.

No part of D&D 4e is available under the Open Game License. In lieu of OGL content, some 4e content was made available under the Game System License, which is very restrictive. Very little third-party work was performed under the GSL. Kenzer and Co. famously released their 4e content without licensing anything under the GSL—instead, they were just very careful about what they used with respect to copyright law, which they could do because their founder is a noted copyright expert. Wizards of the Coast never sued them for copyright infringement, so presumably they did it “right.” (In fact, in the past, it had been Kenzer who sued Wizards of the Coast for their infringement of his copyright, namely some comics in Dragon magazine that they re-published in a compilation volume without his permission.)

D&D 5e has gone back to the OGL, but only a very limited portion of 5e is available under it. For many aspects of the game, only one example of a thing is available as open-game content—it mostly serves as enough of a foundation for third-party publishers to write their own examples following that baseline, rather than potentially serving as a resource for players to actually play the game (as the SRD did for 3e and 3.5e).

d20 system – What does the OGL mean for things based on d20 elements, but which aren’t games?

I’ve been thinking lately about how the Overlord novels/manga/anime are so clearly based on 3e/3.5e/d20/whatever, yet were still commercially published–and, as far as I’m aware, suffered no legal action from Wizards of the Coast.

Much of the “mechanics” of the series (at least from what I’ve seen) are entirely possible within the parts of d20 that are covered by OGL.

Just as an example, let’s look at Overlord‘s spell magic arrow, a clear copy of d20’s magic missile. It’s a 1st-tier spell, equivalent to a 1st-level spell, and it launches an unavoidable bolt of non-elemental (equivalent to force damage, or not having an energy type) magic that deals a small amount of damage and cannot be blocked by normal means. The spell can also create multiple bolts if cast at a higher tier/level, just like how magic missile would (depending on what exactly the Overlord wiki means by this, possibly similar to the Spell Points variant rule, also open content)

By my reading of the OGL 1.(e), “Product Identity” (which, as per section 7, must be agreed to not have any of the following done with it, from 1.(f): “Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content”; 1.(b) defines Derivative Material as “copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted”) includes both the “spell” magic missile and the “magical…effect” produced by magic missile, as well as any modification or adaption thereof.

The effects of magic arrow are clearly derivative of magic missile. But the specifics, such as dealing 1d4+1 damage (or what 1d4+1 damage even translates to, beyond rarely being enough to kill a target with one shot), or having a range of 100 ft. + 10 ft. per caster level, or any of those details which pertain to actual d20 mechanics, do not seem to be mentioned in Overlord.

So this brings me back to the question, which is more general than just that single spell. How is it that Overlord‘s use of things which seem like they ought to be forbidden due to being considered WotC’s “Product Identity”, is actually okay? Is it because Overlord isn’t a game (in which case, where are exceptions like this stated in the OGL? Does it have to do with the fact that the above details are generalized into a written/drawn form?)? Is it because magic missile isn’t explicitly designated as Product Identity beyond the proper name of itself as a spell (in which case, what about spells like sleep and animate dead, which Overlord keeps the names of, or elements such as “troll” creatures with high strength and what amount to d20’s Scent/Regeneration abilities?)? Or is it something else entirely?

(Sorry if the formatting of some of this question is a mess, I’m not really used to dealing with talking about licenses and don’t know what’s considered conventional)

Explanation of Pathfinder OGL – RPG Stack Exchange

A proper name is something like Caladrel; something that serves as an identifier for something unique (even if this name does not indicate a specific thing; Caladrel is a sample elven name). For example, a character is something like "Black Butterfly, the empyreal master of distance, silence and space"; You can describe them as you like, but if they are an identifiable entity, that is a character.

Noteworthy: some scout Signs have names that are not protected by the intellectual property law, such as: B. Asmodeus. these characters as shown in the collective texts of the Pathfinder role-playing game are protected content even though their names are not.

General …

each Pathfinder role-playing game The book contains text, usually in the "Frontmatter" (credits page), about what falls under product identity and what falls under open content.

For example on the website of Pathfinder RPG Advanced Class Guide::

product identity: The following elements are hereby identified as product identity, as defined in the Open Game License Version 1.0a, Section 1 (e), and are not open content: All brands, registered brands, proper names (characters, deities etc.), dialogues, Acts, storylines, locations, characters, works of art and commercial clothing. (Elements that were previously referred to as Open Game Content or are in the public domain are not included in this statement.)
Open content: Except for the material identified as product identity (see above), the game mechanics of this Paizo game product are open game content as defined in the Open Gaming License Version 1.0a, Section 1 (d). No part of this work other than the material referred to as Open Game Content may be reproduced in any form without written permission.

This is important to read and understand, e.g. each Book from which the content you want to reproduce comes from.

Make sure you know the trademark and copyright laws for the United States and all regions in which you want to publish your derived content. It is generally reasonable to assume that a word Paizo invented (like Aatheriexa) is out of bounds, but any common word (like the investigator) or an ambiguous aspect of a game element (like the numerical statistics of an aatheriexa or the Investigator class) is worth examining the suitability of for use in your own work; be diligent In this regard.

I am not a lawyer, so I hesitate to give advice beyond that, and I strongly recommend that you consult a lawyer before putting your work on the market. His absolutely safe that you have carefully studied the full text of the Open Game license, which you can find at the end of each PFRPG book. The Open Game License formalizes people's knowledge that "game mechanics are not subject to copyright, only their arrangement". (However, this is popular knowledge – not legally binding.)


With the exception of the last few years of its run, the Pathfinder role play 1 .. The edition came with an online tool called PRD, which should provide third parties with a list of content that can be safely used in their own derivative works. Brands and other product identities were removed from the text where they needed to be. This is a good starting point to know what you can use freely, however do your homework, and in particular Do not rely on external "Pathfinder SRD" sites to interpret the trademark and copyright for you.

dnd 5e – Need help with OGL

Sure there is – pay Wizards of the Coast to license this material.

The Open Game license is free, but only covers part of the game. Often, only one example is dealt with for each type of thing. To include the rest of the content, you must license it from Wizards of the Coast. However, they do not offer it under the Open Game license. You must therefore purchase it under another license that won. & # 39; t be free.

This is exactly what Fantasy Grounds and Roll20 did, for example. They pay Wizards of the Coast a certain amount of money and receive a license to include 5e content that goes beyond what is available on their platforms under the OGL. How much you pay, the exact terms of this license are not public information. Wizards of the Coast doesn't just have a store somewhere selling licenses for its content. Instead, these licenses and the associated license fees are negotiated between Wizards of the Coast and the licensee.

In particular, both Fantasy Grounds and Roll20 were existing, working platforms before 5e existed. Part of the "payment" that Wizards of the Coast may require can be some kind of certainty that your platform will be a real thing that people really use, as part of the value they get from selling these licenses , the increased exposure of D&D is across these platforms. So if you are still working on the platform, you may not be interested in negotiating a payment. Or maybe they are – again, these are not public details, so we cannot really know. There is probably a certain amount of money that you could throw at them to get them to pay attention, even if they have doubts about your platform.