#A-6E

[usafphantom2]

EA-6A-148618-VMCJ2-CHERRY-POINT-APR75 by Michel Klaveren

[macgyverphotography]

The Grumman A-6E Intruder attack aircraft was used from Vietnam to Bosnia. This particular aircraft flew missions in Vietnam and Operation Desert Storm.

[dragongirltongue]

Every fucking callout post has the screenshots that are like:

target: sooo, as I was saying [ta6oo kink] is so fucking hot right? Are you still down to RP it with me? target: I get it if you wanna 6ail OP of callout: Yeah I fucking love it, I'm totally down :D OP of callout: Anything you're feeling right now in particular

And so as much as it disgusted me to lie a6out 6eing into that shit it was the only way I could get the trans woman with weird tastes to expose herself 10 years ago.

---

And every fucking time I'm just like, damn, even if that particular thing is distur6ing to me, you fucking lied your way into knowing it, kept the lie up for years and then used that trust to try and ruin her life? And you want me to trust you now? Fuck off.

[daarka]

Actually fucking nuts. Capitalism ruins everything.

Push back against this. Be loud. Use #OpenDnD liberally.

Staying in 5e and ignoring 6e/"OneDnD" is not an option. I'll try to summarize below the cut, but I'm not an expert, so please seek out resources that aren't me for full info. This link is a good start. This is the full deep-dive I read up on a few days ago. Listening to the community is also worthwhile to understand from the voices of those affected most. To be more involved in the discussion yourself, a lawyer has set up a Discord server for the community to gather and converse in regarding this issue.

Again, for full context and information from more knowledgeable sources than me (including actual professionals), please go to the links I included above. If you don't have the time/patience/spoons to read those articles, scroll a twitter feed, or poke around a Discord server though, here are the things that made the most potent impression on me and why you should care about this issue.

As mentioned, staying in 5e and ignoring 6e/"OneDnD" is not an option. While OGL1.1 was made for 6e, the extensive parts of the document that have been leaked make it clear that with OGL1.1 going into effect, OGL1.0a (which has been the OGL for the past decade) will no longer be functional. 3rd party creators must choose to either sign the OGL1.1 and comply with it's insanely restrictive and predatory terms, or face legal repercussions for publishing the content they have made their livelihoods off of the past decade.

Per the leaked document, all 3rd party creators must register themselves and their creations with WotC. - 3rd party creators making over $50,000 USD per year must also report their earnings to WotC. - 3rd party creators making over $750,000 USD gross per year must also pay WotC a 25% royalty. This means it is not 750k in profits, it is 750k before any expenses that they are taking the royalties from. Anyone whose profit margin was 25% or less would be financially invalidated by this royalty, and can even end up losing money. Furthermore, the nature of Kickstarters for example is that there is no upper ceiling on earnings, so a KS for a 3rd party sourcebook will suddenly be facing a massive expense they may not have planned for if their campaign exceeds the 750k mark, potentially destroying their ability to deliver on the rewards when they otherwise could have. While currently only a small number of creators are known to make over 750k/year (gross, not net), that does not mean this will not affect you. It creates a very dire argument for why 3rd party creators should not even make the effort in the first place, especially with crowdfunding where too much success can suddenly ruin them.

Remember how those who make over 50k have to report their earnings? Well, the 750k threshold is one WotC says they have the right to change at any time in OGL1.1. This means they can see what people are making when creators are forced to report their earnings over 50k, and use that data to lower the threshold of income for their royalty fee, and they can do this at any time, however much they want. Per OGL1.1, they are telling you that they can decide on a whim that actually, anyone making over $5,000 USD gross a year has to pay the 25% royalty.

D&DBeyond / OneDnD are working towards creating a VTT to host OneDnD/6e. While Roll20 is licensed by WotC if I'm not mistaken, virtually no other VTT is. Platforms like Foundry VTT (my personal favorite and most beloved VTT) will not be able to host the D&D system on them under OGL1.1. What does that mean? Hard to say. But it will objectively become much harder to play D&D outside of WotC-approved spaces in the near future, and that is by design. They want to monopolize how this game is played, and that means making it difficult, inconvenient, or even illegal to play the game outside of their personal playground.

Under OGL1.1, WotC claims full and complete ownership over any and all 3rd party content created for D&D, and the rights to use it however, whenever, and wherever they want without paying you royalties. You made this? Hasbro made this.

I've only ever played 5e. But this link I put up above was very informative about prior editions and the drama surrounding them. 3e had an OGL, and the community began to flourish with 3rd party content. WotC didn't like that people who weren't them were making money off a passion for D&D, and they regretted the OGL--but that OGL was irrevocable, and could not be cancelled, removed, or in any way undone. So they put together 3.5e. They promised 3.5e would be backwards compatible, and all your resources for 3e would still work for it. So people jumped to 3.5e, only to find all their 3e content was now worthless, because that hadn't been true. And 3.5e, of course, did away with that open and welcoming OGL from 3e. Sound familiar? "OneDnD" is touted to be backwards compatible. And yet also comes with crushing restrictions in their OGL1.1 that make it impossible for the D&D community to exist as it has been. It is transparently clear that for WotC/Hasbro, an ideal world would be one where all the money people have spent on flourishing this community over the last decade would have gone exclusively into their pockets. D&D makes hundreds of millions every year, but it's "under monetized" according to their new CEO. It doesn't matter if "Honor Among Thieves" flops at the box office, WotC has already green-lit the production of multiple D&D movies. It's not about fanservice, it's about fan exploitation. Because they can't fucking stand that the game they made can be played obsessively and passionately for decades with only the one-time purchases of the DMG and PHB. And instead of fixing the apparent "under-monetization" problem by publishing more official content, they choose to poach 3rd party creators. The very lifeblood that has caused D&D's success. Because capitalist greed is a soulless poison to whatever it fixes its attention on.

The only way the community has any shot in hell to fight this is if the pushback is intense and loud. WotC has released statements mentioning an openness to listening to the community and revising their choices based on feedback; whether that proves to be lip service or not remains to be seen, but either way: the only thing they seem to care about is money. Fine, let your money do the talking, then. Wholeheartedly support the boycott. Proclaim your support of it loudly. Let Hasbro know that their attempts to milk more profits out of this franchise will be the very thing that kills it if they don't ease the fuck back and allow OGL1.0a to persist. They apparently didn't learn shit when this happened in 3e/3.5e. They can either wise up now before they fuck up beyond repair, or they can be fully destroyed by their own greed. Time will tell.

Edit:

Good catch, thanks! You're right, I must have had some wires crossed when writing that bit. They couldn't revoke it, but they did publish new content for 3.5e that made 3.0e content feel worthless; this is not something I personally lived through, but is based on the reporting from this second article I linked. Likewise, that article explains how 4e did not have an OGL and was consequentially a bit of a wasteland, presumably prompting WotC to bring the OGL back for 5e. Which flourished. And now we're here.

Edit II:

I'm Super not the best source of information for this because I'm absolutely all over the place, but 2 things.

Please check out OpenDnD.games for full, proper info and a place to give your signature in support of the community's pushback.

Something else I failed to mention above: OGL1.1 has a "poison pill" clause. Anyone who signs it permanently forfeits their right to publish under prior versions of the OGL, even if they are unable to take down those prior versions. DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING FOR OGL1.1. Even if the community pushback yields results, you may have trapped yourself. "Predatory" does not even begin to cover it.

[y-rhywbeth2]

So, I was looking through a new sourcebook for details on life in Faerûn for a post, and guess which godly jackass has MORE LORE. There's also more on Bhaal, but I'm focusing on cussing out Bane right now.

"Weakness and frivolity should be publicly destroyed for all to see and heed. Good is but a shelter for weakness and the whims of those who profess noble goals. Evil is the true state of nature, for winning is everything, and oppression is natural. Fight against good, and exalt evil. Tyrannize and destroy the weak, so that all in time become better and stronger, everyone knowing their place and not daring to question or foment disorder."

Goddamnit Bane, will you please take a fucking nap and calm the fuck down. "Frivolity should be publicly destroyed!" Even Bhaal lets his followers have hobbies!

Other fun Banite things:

"Kill a good person once a day." Bane will accept you thwarting their altruism if you must, but he'd really rather a murder.

Laws should be black and white and followed exactly as written no matter how stupid they are. Anybody who's arbitrary with them should be put to the death and replaced.

Turns out that after the death of the last High Imperceptor the hierarchy of the church went back to trying to kill each other for power. Good luck getting that back under control, asshole.

You don't have to wear something black! You just have to wear the holy symbol: the Hand of Bane! ...which is black. Things we can't have under Banite rule: hobbies, fun in general, critical thinking skills, a wardrobe containing colour...

Oh, I found more stuff on this asshole. Of course I fucking did. Fuck you Bane and your stupid levels of lore.

[lours-postal]

2024 - 498

[digital-meat]

summary of 5.5e / 6e / dndone

[harpoonsnotspoons]

SOME OTHERS HE OWNS ARE CALLED: FRIENDLY REMINDER, FRIENDLY WARNING, PROBLEMATIC FAVORITE, OVERSTIMULATOR, AND PERMABAN

[undead-space]

Bitches will see anything and immediately think of the Captain

[usafphantom2]

EA-6A-156992-VMAQ2-SHERRY-POINT-1977-CC by Michel Klaveren Via Flickr: Via Caz Caswell

[carbone14]

Mitrailleuse MG 34 du 141st Gebirgsjäger Regiment de la 6e Division de montagne – Guerre de continuation – Péninsule de Kola – Union soviétique – Avril 1942

[dragongirltongue]

No mattter what Love Death and Robots does it'll never outdo Sonnie's Edge tbh...

Khanivore my beloved......

[knightofburgers]

Nerds Will Defeat WotC

[finncakes]

birthday gifts for a very dear friend <3

[y-rhywbeth2]

Hello! Do vampire spawn explicitly need consent to drink their master’s blood or is it more that they physically/mentally aren’t able to because their master has control over them? I figured it was fairly vague and open to different interpretations. For example, Cazador can stop Astarion in his tracks to keep him from attacking him or even order the spawn to torture themselves, but at the end of the big fight, he’s too weak to even try to stop Astarion from stabbing him.

What’s stopping spawn from drinking their master’s blood when they’re too weak to deny them? If it’s taken without consent would they suck-sessfully (sorry 😅) turn into a true vampire or would they stay spawns?

Ah, vague descriptions that are open to interpretation - It's not truly D&D if these don't exist so that the table can derail the game for six hours arguing about it.

EDIT: Ohhh I just noticed I answered a different question to what you asked. Sorry. Half-asleep.

Honestly. No idea about the stabbing. I'll try to answer that again in the morning and my brain works again.

if Cazador has forbidden Astarion from attempting to biting him or otherwise attempting to drink his blood then I imagine Astarion can't do so. Cazador's orders stand, regardless of if his spawn has the upper hand at the moment. Of course, if Shadowheart temporarily disables Cazador's commands with her Turn Undead ability, then Astarion can ignore those commands.

EDIT 2: And obviously, the tadpole and Astarion being severely triggered and more interested in the vampire+ package of ascension was a large part of it.

---

But what I was babbling about regarding the need for blood, because I'm fond of it:

Disclaimer; I don't think this was intended at all, but it's there!

Prior to 3.5e vampire spawn wasn't even a separate category. An enslaved vampire had all the abilities of their master. (And - back before we had to deal with the lingering bullshit effects of 4e carrying over - spawn were still basically on the same level as their masters; the only thing ascended Astarion would've been able to do that his unascended self couldn't would've been the ability to turn into or summon/control bats (and wolves and rats), which is honestly a trivial difference) What caught my eye here is that 3.5e also had an interesting thing in that not all of the new creations of a vampire were spawn: more powerful individuals rose from their grave with the whole powerset already unlocked (what 5e terms a "true" vampire), but they were still under their killer's control.

The blood drinking is a new element added in 5e, which is how a spawn "transform" into true vampires now. Freeing a vampire from control is a separate thing that all the editions have answered, blood drinking has never been related to emancipation.

Stick to a pure 3.5e reading (and an interpretation of 5e's) and a vampire can free a spawn without them unlocking their full power.

1e - 3.5e, when we put it up against 5e's new "spawn/true" divide, have established that being a "true" vampire or becoming one is a separate factor to being controlled.

A vampire holds control over those it kills, whether they're full vampire or spawn. A vampire could turn its spawn into a full vampire without surrendering control. A spawn can be freed without them becoming a true vampire.

So if we follow this reading, if Astarion could drink Cazador's blood without Cazador granting his freedom, Astarion would become a full vampire but still be under his master's control. (Vampires being paranoid and territorial, even if he can still control them, Cazador probably wouldn't want to make his spawn stronger, so that wouldn't happen)

Anyway, now we're starting to go into the realms of there being no RAW to follow.

Can a spawn drink from their dead master's blood and still gain power? Does it have to be their own master's blood, or will any "true" vampire do the job? We have no answers for this, so you'll have to decide for yourself.

Welcome to the wonderful world of DM fiat: the loophole can be made, and taken out of all proportion. I imagine someone's going to be a killjoy about this, but I stand by what I said here and I don't care

[toutplacid]

Balzac par Rodin, boulevard Raspail, Paris 6e – mine de graphite, carnet n° 125, 13 mai 2019