|
|
|
|
|
|
by wotcthrrrrow
1259 days ago
|
|
|
Sure, but "not being explicit" is very different than the way OP phrased it ("WoTC says in this post") -- it made me think I'd missed some explicit mention of it. FWIW, I don't even believe they ever wanted to try to claw back e.g. the 3.5 SRD, so I'm not as concerned as other folk here. (But it's also clear that if they have no such intent, they'd need to make it legally binding for folk to trust them.) |
|
|