# Mimicking WotC's layout design, fonts, etc. . .



## fissionessence (Jun 22, 2008)

This might not be the same kind of legal advice people around here are used to dealing with, but hopefully someone has some insight/experience.

I was just wondering how close a 3PP could come to mimicking Wizards's 4E layout design without infringing on any kind of copyright or whatever restrictions. Things like margin width, column width and font sizes seem like no big deal, but what about when you start getting into the precise fonts that their books use (Mentor and Mentor Sans), copying the hues in their monster stat blocks, and using the same gradient in the background of every other box in the power tables?

Additionally, the SRD seems to suggest that 3PPs may use the power icons; does anyone know if that's actually the case? If it is, have these symbols been made freely available? (I was able to rip them out from pdfs of the books for personal use, but I wanted to see what was known about using them commercially, and how then they should be obtained officially.) Along similar but different same lines, what about WotC's special fonts DNDVecna and DNDLolth (used for their main headings and subheadings repsectively)? I was able to rip the Lolth font, but not the Vecna font (once again, for personal use), but I hoped someone would have insight on what kind of things one would actually be able to with any of those fonts [legally].

Thanks for your time!

~ fissionessence


----------



## tensen (Jun 23, 2008)

fissionessence said:
			
		

> I was just wondering how close a 3PP could come to mimicking Wizards's 4E layout design without infringing on any kind of copyright or whatever restrictions. Things like margin width, column width and font sizes seem like no big deal, but what about when you start getting into the precise fonts that their books use (Mentor and Mentor Sans), copying the hues in their monster stat blocks, and using the same gradient in the background of every other box in the power tables?




You are talking about trade dress.  Which I believe falls under the same category as trademark, and not related to copyright.

Under the 3rd edition days there was of course lots of mimicing of the type of pseudo fantasy cover look for the book covers of d20 products.  Later licenses did specifically mention restrictions, but overall it isn't necessary for WOTC to list it in their licenses, because there already are laws regarding trade dress use.

I recommend you don't chance things by making it too close.  After all, you really won't be impressing your customers.  They are looking for you to make something creative and useful for them, copying WOTC's look is actually a bad first impression of your creative abilities.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Jun 24, 2008)

You may use the power icons. When presenting game information, you need to make sure you follow GSL restrictions.

But if you have any intention of selling your product (or making it available outside your immediate gaming group by any means), I strongly suggest you don't "mimic" WOTC's overall "look and feel." Make your own.

The issues tensen listed above are serious ones. I quite agree that you can't impress customers by copying WOTC, and that you run a very high risk of becoming entangled in legal action for trade dress infringement.

I recommend you show your customers that your work is valuable in its own right, not because it looks like WOTC's work.


----------



## fissionessence (Jun 24, 2008)

Thanks, guys; I was completely unfamiliar with the concept of 'trade dress', so I'm glad you appropriated me to the term. I'll definitely abandon the idea of directly copying the design of the 4E book (I've already set to work on my own since reading these posts).

I guess this is kind of irrelevant to the legal issues, but I'd almost rather 3PPs used layouts that mimicked WotC's just to prevent some of the atrocities that I've downloaded (in terms of their design). I'd rather see something cookie-cut and not creative than something poorly done. Ah well, though; I guess that's just my opinion.

~


----------



## LeaderDesslok (Jun 25, 2008)

fissionessence said:
			
		

> Additionally, the SRD seems to suggest that 3PPs may use the power icons; does anyone know if that's actually the case? If it is, have these symbols been made freely available? (I was able to rip them out from pdfs of the books for personal use, but I wanted to see what was known about using them commercially, and how then they should be obtained officially.)




I saw a message from Scott Rouse over on the Wizards boards. He is looking to get those power symbols made ready for people to use in their own products, but as of now there is no separate file for you find them in. The method you describe is pretty much the only way to get them at the moment, AFAIK.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 25, 2008)

fissionessence said:
			
		

> Thanks, guys; I was completely unfamiliar with the concept of 'trade dress', so I'm glad you appropriated me to the term. I'll definitely abandon the idea of directly copying the design of the 4E book (I've already set to work on my own since reading these posts).
> 
> I guess this is kind of irrelevant to the legal issues, but I'd almost rather 3PPs used layouts that mimicked WotC's just to prevent some of the atrocities that I've downloaded (in terms of their design). I'd rather see something cookie-cut and not creative than something poorly done. Ah well, though; I guess that's just my opinion.
> 
> ~




Yeah - trade dress is a big deal, and a large part of brand identity; and, as such, it is jealously protected - and rightly so!


----------



## Marius Delphus (Jun 25, 2008)

fissionessence said:
			
		

> Along similar but different same lines, what about WotC's special fonts DNDVecna and DNDLolth (used for their main headings and subheadings repsectively)? I was able to rip the Lolth font, but not the Vecna font (once again, for personal use), but I hoped someone would have insight on what kind of things one would actually be able to with any of those fonts [legally].



To answer this other part of your question: nothing. There is nothing you may legally do with fonts ripped out of a PDF. The act of ripping the font does not provide you with a license to use the font.


----------



## fissionessence (Jun 26, 2008)

Marius Delphus said:
			
		

> To answer this other part of your question: nothing. There is nothing you may legally do with fonts ripped out of a PDF. The act of ripping the font does not provide you with a license to use the font.




Yeah. I guess I was just hoping that someone would know of any licensing/purchasing options WotC might have announced for its fonts. Anyway, it doesn't matter at this point since those two fonts (imo) play a pretty big role in defining their 'trade dress' identity. Therefore, I don't expect I'll be pursuing the idea of using them for anything outside of non-commercial personal projects.

~


----------



## BlindOgre (Jul 15, 2008)

fissionessence said:


> Yeah. I guess I was just hoping that someone would know of any licensing/purchasing options WotC might have announced for its fonts. Anyway, it doesn't matter at this point since those two fonts (imo) play a pretty big role in defining their 'trade dress' identity. Therefore, I don't expect I'll be pursuing the idea of using them for anything outside of non-commercial personal projects.
> 
> ~




However, as regards stat blocks; from the 4e SRD: 
_"Use the stat block templates identified and included in
the SRD as guidelines (not constraints) for producing your
own original content requiring such formatting.* Since your
content will resemble like content in the Core Rulebooks, it
will be more readily usable.* You may not reproduce the
blank stat block templates included in the SRD in a
Licensed Product."
_
So, for producing stat blocks at least, the SRD actually encourages matching their format, and the templates are presented in a font similar to Mentor Sans. 

For the remainder of the material, a completely different general trade dress is required, as the GSL specifically addresses such.

Having purchased the Mentor Sans font, I produced the following (small sample) stat block in OpenOffice Writer. Which one do you think came from the PHB and which one did I produce? Try guessing without peeking at the PHB.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Jul 15, 2008)

The first one is yours?  Total Guess.

Btw, how in the world do you get the little star symbol for the keyword entry?


----------



## fissionessence (Jul 15, 2008)

I can tell, but mostly because I spent a couple days trying to exactly reproduce 4E's design. cdrcjsn is correct that the first one is the copy; the primary giveaway is the 'flavor text'; WotC uses Mentor Italic (non-sans) there, whereas you used the Mentor Sans with OpenOffice Writer's automated italic feature rather than the actual Mentor Sans Italic font. Also I think the font sizes and indentation are a little off.

Anyway, you've made your point, though; it's definitely within the realm of possibility to make your own stat blocks look pretty awesome (with some hindrances like getting the font), and I have to agree that the SRD absolutely seems to indicate that 3PPs are welcome to imitate their design for stat blocks.

For my own product, I'm still trying to decide whether I should keep the 4E style stat blocks I've made or come up with my own to more easily integrate and match the rest of the design. The latter option seems preferable, but I can't so easily turn down the idea of making my stuff look more 'official'.

Oh, and to cdrcjsn: The diamond separator is from a wingdings or webdings font, although I forget which one now.

~


----------



## BlindOgre (Jul 15, 2008)

fissionessence said:


> I can tell, but mostly because I spent a couple days trying to exactly reproduce 4E's design. cdrcjsn is correct that the first one is the copy; the primary giveaway is the 'flavor text'; WotC uses Mentor Italic (non-sans) there, whereas you used the Mentor Sans with OpenOffice Writer's automated italic feature rather than the actual Mentor Sans Italic font. Also I think the font sizes and indentation are a little off.
> 
> Anyway, you've made your point, though; it's definitely within the realm of possibility to make your own stat blocks look pretty awesome (with some hindrances like getting the font), and I have to agree that the SRD absolutely seems to indicate that 3PPs are welcome to imitate their design for stat blocks.
> 
> ...




You are both right, of course. I figured the flavor text would give it away as I have yet to buy the correct Mentor Italic font. 

The curvy diamond is from ZapfDingbatsITC. Also, the faded background on the flavor text is just an image fill from a gradient created in PaintShop Pro.
I'll post when I've got it dead-on, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that it can be done fairly easily.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Jul 15, 2008)

Two questions for you guys:

1) Where would I get those fonts?  I'm sure I could find them with a bit of Googling, but I didn't know if there were any sites that (A) would have them all in one place and (B) you'd recommend.  I'm writing a program that includes a power card generator, so having those would help with making close-to-PHB powers.

2) Do you happen to know what the color codes are for the power cards, both the red and black headers and the brownish background?  I could try to reproduce it, but if you already know the colors I might as well get them from you and save myself the time.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Jul 15, 2008)

1) I happen to have posted this in another thread:

Text font: Monotype Mentor
Table font: Monotype Mentor Sans
http://www.fonts.com/FindFonts/detail.htm?pid=420263
(Yes, the price is for real.)

Minor heading font: DNDLolthSC based on Scriptorium Ravenna
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/scriptorium/ravenna/

Major heading font: DNDVecnaSC based on "Textura"
(Haven't located this; Scott Rouse said the fonts are Mentor, Ravenna, and Textura)

However, I recommend picking your own fonts. Making an exact copy of what WOTC's already done is less impressive than doing something of your own and making it conform to more general guidelines of usability and attractiveness. (Personally, it doesn't impress me one bit, but I readily admit to being a corner case in the matter.)

2) Well, black would be black of course. In the image posted, the RGB values for the red are 132, 32, 45. The brownish color is a gradient ramp from 191, 190, 170 (on the left) to white (on the right).

But again, why not pick your own colors? As long as you're in the same general neighborhood as WOTC (for the header bars -- that is, as long as you have easy-to-identify "red," "green," and "black") you should be fine; you can do something different with the gradient ramps (make it solid? make it a tint of the header bar color? make a subtle pattern of some kind? go with divider lines instead?) that might help make it "your own" design rather than "yet another copy of WOTC's" design.

In short, I recommend you show us what *you* can do; we already know what WOTC did.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Jul 15, 2008)

Marius Delphus said:


> 1) I happen to have posted this in another thread:
> 
> Text font: Monotype Mentor
> Table font: Monotype Mentor Sans
> ...






I don't suppose you can download one or two of those for a much lower price...or can you only buy fonts in families?

EDIT: Looking around, it appears you can get individual fonts for _as little as_ (!)  $39 US.  And I apparently need 3 fonts for true-to-PHB cards...Oy.  I might have to make people pay for this thing after all. 



> However, I recommend picking your own fonts. Making an exact copy of what WOTC's already done is less impressive than doing something of your own and making it conform to more general guidelines of usability and attractiveness. (Personally, it doesn't impress me one bit, but I readily admit to being a corner case in the matter.)




The issue with the design is that I said "One feature I can add is making power cards; would people like that?" and posters said "We want stat blocks that look just like the PHB ones!"  So while I can make them look however I want, it seems the end users want true-to-PHB cards.



> 2) Well, black would be black of course.




Couldn't tell if they're actually black or a dark gray; good to know it's just plain old black.



> In the image posted, the RGB values for the red are 132, 32, 45. The brownish color is a gradient ramp from 191, 190, 170 (on the left) to white (on the right).




Thanks.



> But again, why not pick your own colors? As long as you're in the same general neighborhood as WOTC (for the header bars -- that is, as long as you have easy-to-identify "red," "green," and "black") you should be fine; you can do something different with the gradient ramps (make it solid? make it a tint of the header bar color? make a subtle pattern of some kind? go with divider lines instead?) that might help make it "your own" design rather than "yet another copy of WOTC's" design.
> 
> In short, I recommend you show us what *you* can do; we already know what WOTC did.




Well, I'm already planning on just doing solid colors, because Java and gradient text backgrounds aren't really on speaking terms, but like I said it isn't for my benefit.  If I were just going "Hey guys, power card maker!" I'd experiment, but people have asked specifically for true-to-PHB cards, and that's what I promised I'd try to do.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Jul 15, 2008)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> So while I can make them look however I want, it seems the end users want true-to-PHB cards.



Guess I missed that bit; I beg your pardon. Again, I readily admit to being a corner case in the matter and this almost certainly colors (no pun intended) my preference.



> Couldn't tell if they're actually black or a dark gray; good to know it's just plain old black.



I remember hearing that it was *supposed* to be black, and if that's true, then what probably happened with the colored header bars in the PHB is that the PDF specified CMYK Black (0, 0, 0, 100) rather than a Rich Black (which contains splashes of the other three inks), and so it *looks* dark grey.

Glad I could help, if only a bit.


----------



## Jraynack (Jul 15, 2008)

Marius Delphus said:


> 1) However, I recommend picking your own fonts. Making an exact copy of what WOTC's already done is less impressive than doing something of your own and making it conform to more general guidelines of usability and attractiveness.
> 
> In short, I recommend you show us what *you* can do; we already know what WOTC did.




I agree wholeheartedly on this matter.  Although I find it important to implement some of the 4th Edition layout for consistency it is far more important to show who _you_ are as a 3PP.

We, at Alea Publishing Group, chose to follow suit with the simplicity of their layout, while maintaining some of our elaborate trademarks we are known for (the wax seal page numbers).

I think importance of the colors is significant for 4th Edition products, but font and layout design is a chance to show customers your distinct personality.  There are a lot of great free fonts out there (I spent many hours, and hours, and  . . . infinite) as well as free font makers - I even designed our own attack icons just in case WotC does not allow use of theirs.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Jul 15, 2008)

Marius Delphus said:
			
		

> Guess I missed that bit; I beg your pardon. Again, I readily admit to being a corner case in the matter and this almost certainly colors (no pun intended) my preference.




No problem; I didn't mention it the first time around.



> I remember hearing that it was *supposed* to be black, and if that's true, then what probably happened with the colored header bars in the PHB is that the PDF specified CMYK Black (0, 0, 0, 100) rather than a Rich Black (which contains splashes of the other three inks), and so it *looks* dark grey.
> 
> Glad I could help, if only a bit.




Yeah, I _thought_ it was a washed-out black, but I wasn't sure if it was intentionally lighter.



			
				Jraynack said:
			
		

> I agree wholeheartedly on this matter. Although I find it important to implement some of the 4th Edition layout for consistency it is far more important to show who you are as a 3PP.




Aw, you guys are giving me way too much credit.  I'm just working up a little program to help homebrewers (the DM's Toolkit, if you're interested, though its release has been held up for a month due to WotC shenanigans) and I'm not planning to actually publish power cards in a PDF or anything, just something that will let people make their own.


----------



## fissionessence (Jul 15, 2008)

Sampled directly from the leaked pdf, the power heading colors are as follows:
at-will: R 91; G 143; B 98
encounter: R 129; G 28; B 50 (very close to what Marius Delphus posted in post 14; not sure where the disparity is here or who's 'right')
daily: R 65; G 67; B 66 — That's a light enough gray that I can't imagine they meant for it to be completely black at any point. It's also interesting [to me] that it isn't a strict gray, but instead has a little extra blue and green.

And BlindOgre, thanks for the correction on the diamond! I just spliced that character into my Mentor Sans Bold font so that I can just use a | and the diamond pops up without changing fonts 

~

EDIT: On second thought, the disparity between the encounter header colors is probably there because I'm pretty sure BlindOgre scanned his PHB to get that Cleric power. The scanning process probably threw off the color just a bit. I was also going to add that it looks like the scanner auto-sharpened the PHB version, which is another giveaway which is his version (because it is straight from his document editor and has no such flaws). It's also worth noting that my sampling of BlindOgre's scan gives me: R 143; G 33; B 46 and a sampling of his version gives me: R 139; G 18; B 49. This give me four different sets of numbers for the encounter power; this has to tell you something . . . although I don't really know what. I guess just pick your favorite 

~


----------



## jelmore (Jul 15, 2008)

cdrcjsn said:


> The first one is yours?  Total Guess.
> 
> Btw, how in the world do you get the little star symbol for the keyword entry?




The first one is definitely his; I work with fonts all day long and, while I'm not a complete font guru, I could spot the differences right off. (It also helps that I'd already located the correct fonts and have been tinkering with my own project, and have been staring at then for several weeks.) The biggest difference is that the flavor text for the power in the PHB is actually Mentor Italic, not Mentor Sans Italic; look at the lower-case "g" characters and you'll see the difference.

As for the four-pointed star it's Unicode character U+2726 ( HTML entity &#2726; ) -- I'm not sure if there's a keyboard shortcut to get it, but you should be able to find it in a character palette app; Mac OS X has one accessible from the International control panel, but I don't know where the Windows one is. I can tell you that the OpenType versions of Mentor Sans and Mentor Standard have that character glyph, as I don't use Zapf Dingbats in my project.


----------



## BlindOgre (Jul 16, 2008)

jelmore said:


> The first one is definitely his; I work with fonts all day long and, while I'm not a complete font guru, I could spot the differences right off. (It also helps that I'd already located the correct fonts and have been tinkering with my own project, and have been staring at then for several weeks.) The biggest difference is that the flavor text for the power in the PHB is actually Mentor Italic, not Mentor Sans Italic; look at the lower-case "g" characters and you'll see the difference.
> 
> As for the four-pointed star it's Unicode character U+2726 ( HTML entity દ ) -- I'm not sure if there's a keyboard shortcut to get it, but you should be able to find it in a character palette app; Mac OS X has one accessible from the International control panel, but I don't know where the Windows one is. I can tell you that the OpenType versions of Mentor Sans and Mentor Standard have that character glyph, as I don't use Zapf Dingbats in my project.




When pasting from the PHB PDF, the diamond comes identifies as ZapfDingbats. Other fonts may have similar glyphs.

With the correct italic and closer font sizing and spacing, the difference gets a little tougher to tell:







I got the Mentor Sans and Mentor Italic fonts from fonts.com. $39 each.

BTW, the jpg conversion of these colors may be a bit off. I picked up the original RGB from the release PDF of the PHB.


----------



## BlindOgre (Jul 16, 2008)

Marius Delphus said:


> However, I recommend picking your own fonts. Making an exact copy of what WOTC's already done is less impressive than doing something of your own and making it conform to more general guidelines of usability and attractiveness. (Personally, it doesn't impress me one bit, but I readily admit to being a corner case in the matter.)
> 
> 2) Well, black would be black of course. In the image posted, the RGB values for the red are 132, 32, 45. The brownish color is a gradient ramp from 191, 190, 170 (on the left) to white (on the right).
> 
> ...




Actually, the red/green/black I picked were from the PHB PDF. Doing a dead copy is an exercise, more or less, to first establish that I could reproduce their style and with such a baseline established, branch away until I find something that is both recognizable in format, yet somewhat distinct in style.


----------



## BlindOgre (Jul 16, 2008)

fissionessence said:


> Sampled directly from the leaked pdf, the power heading colors are as follows:
> at-will: R 91; G 143; B 98
> encounter: R 129; G 28; B 50 (very close to what Marius Delphus posted in post 14; not sure where the disparity is here or who's 'right')
> daily: R 65; G 67; B 66 — That's a light enough gray that I can't imagine they meant for it to be completely black at any point. It's also interesting [to me] that it isn't a strict gray, but instead has a little extra blue and green.
> ...




My colors came directly from the official PHB PDF, but I forgot to mention that I nudged the colors a tad for the sake of my laser printer. Which brings up another point - matching colors exactly is a pain when it comes to printed results. I have 4 PHBs, an MM and DMG, and the full set of official PDFs. There are slight variances in scanned hue from one to the other, as one will encounter with any printing method. What checks as ok on-screen may look like hell when printed.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Jul 16, 2008)

And may look great printed on a different printer. And may look weird-but-still-okay on yet a third printer. That's why publishing houses get proof copies from the machine that will actually be used to run final copies at the print house. 

I do understand the "dead copy" exercise, so for what it's worth, Blind, the "faux bold" is still quite obvious in your, what is it, a screencap? To me it is, anyway.

You said you were trying to dial in the font sizing and spacing: using my handy-dandy printer's point ruler on my copy of the PHB, I'd say the power listings appear to have text size/leading of 8.75/10 (there's a couple points of padding above and below the italic paragraph). The color bar appears to be 14.5 points thick; the power name looks like 11 point text and the other text there is back to the 8.75 size. The PHB text appears to be tracked just a smidgen looser than yours, as well, but that's harder to nail down looking at a screencap versus printed pages.

Now, I used Warnock and Myriad to substitute for Mentor and Mentor Sans when I did my versions of the MM pages WOTC released. They worked well enough. Not, strictly speaking, a suggestion*; just a point of reference.  Also, it wasn't a "dead copy" exercise but an intentional departure just for my own amusement.

* Though personally I find something annoying about Mentor. I think it's that it has too great an x-height to support the chosen leading. I'm not sure though. And in any case, that's entirely a matter of opinion and personal preference and whatnot (I *am* glad it's not Times New Roman or Bodoni, two of my least favorite text fonts), and I probably think too much about these things anyway.


----------



## BlindOgre (Jul 17, 2008)

Marius Delphus said:


> And may look great printed on a different printer. And may look weird-but-still-okay on yet a third printer. That's why publishing houses get proof copies from the machine that will actually be used to run final copies at the print house.
> 
> I do understand the "dead copy" exercise, so for what it's worth, Blind, the "faux bold" is still quite obvious in your, what is it, a screencap? To me it is, anyway.
> 
> ...




Screen caps, indeed... sqished into jpgs that don't quite render very well.

I obsess on these points as well (no pun intended). I'm not overloading the font controls, just using the base sizes and a little tweaking of line spacing. At this point, I'm confident that given a little more control and a few more rounds of adjustment, I could nail the thing... 

So, at this point I will start diverging. Reasons: Mentor bleeds too much when printed with a white font on a dark background. The faded text background renders poorly in jpg and on some printers. The proper Mentor Italic scaled normally is both a bit thin and crowded for these old eyes. While the fonts do well for offset or high-res printing, they don't print as well as others on a laser. 

The style in general is almost too clean for a fantasy game. It has a distinctly modular look, but similar blocks tend to blur in one's mind with no iconic image or glyph tags to identify the different power types (as with the attack types for monsters).

Also, someone who is Red-Green color-blind may have a hell of a time telling the power types apart via the color coding.

In the next couple of days, I'll do up my own styling on the blocks and will pass them along for here for feedback.

A truly evil though of mine has been to take the 4e look back to 3.5 OGL material... just to see how it would look


----------



## Marius Delphus (Jul 17, 2008)

I'm red-green color blind, and I can vouch for having a bit of trouble differentiating the "wine red" and "dark gray" at a glance in my PHB. This is part of the reason I like some of the ideas I've seen in the "power cards" thread: icons in addition to colors make things perfectly clear even to someone that can't see any colors at all. "Rainbow red" would be much easier for me to see.

It's a problem I'll have to decide whether and how to solve when and if the time comes. 

Is it *as* evil as trying to re-code 3.5 spells, monster special abilities, and so forth as Int vs. Reflex, and the like?


----------



## BlindOgre (Jul 17, 2008)

Marius Delphus said:


> I'm red-green color blind, and I can vouch for having a bit of trouble differentiating the "wine red" and "dark gray" at a glance in my PHB. This is part of the reason I like some of the ideas I've seen in the "power cards" thread: icons in addition to colors make things perfectly clear even to someone that can't see any colors at all. "Rainbow red" would be much easier for me to see.
> 
> It's a problem I'll have to decide whether and how to solve when and if the time comes.
> 
> Is it *as* evil as trying to re-code 3.5 spells, monster special abilities, and so forth as Int vs. Reflex, and the like?




Re-coding 3.5 stuff into 4e is another topic - and about a dozen times more evil than porting back the stat block layouts 

Regarding the colors, I think that nicely done icons and distinctive (but not large) borders with color highlights would be nice... will see what I can come up with.


----------



## CinnamonPixie (Jul 20, 2008)

Marius Delphus said:


> I'm red-green color blind, and I can vouch for having a bit of trouble differentiating the "wine red" and "dark gray" at a glance in my PHB.




I have that same problem (same form of color blindness even) when I glance at my books too!


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Jul 21, 2008)

Thank you to those of you who gave me the formatting/color info.  While I don't think I'm going to get the Mentor fonts, my Toolkit now does fairly accurate power cards, thanks to you guys:






Put in the data and that's what comes out.  You can change the colors from the defaults if you want, but otherwise it's entirely automatic.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 11, 2008)

For those interested in the proper color formatting, these values were derived from the official PDFs sold at DriveThruRPG, verified with the colors shown in the SRD.

Power (At-Will)

    * RGB: R 0, G 143, B 0
    * HSL: H 80, S 240, L 67
    * Hex Code: #008f00
    * CMYK: C 1.000, M 0.000, Y 1.000, K 0.439 

Power (Encounter)

    * RGB: R 148, G 19, B 0
    * HSL: H 5, S 240, L 70
    * Hex Code: #941300
    * CMYK: C 0.000, M 0.872, Y 1.000, K 0.420 

Power (Daily)

    * RGB: R 0, G 0, B 0
    * HSL: H 0, S 0, L 0
    * Hex Code: #000000
    * CMYK: C 0.000, M 0.000, Y 0.000, K 1.000 

Magic Item

    * RGB: R 255, G 125, B 0
    * HSL: H 20, S 240, L 120
    * Hex Code: #ff7d00
    * CMYK: C 0.000, M 0.510, Y 1.000, K 0.000 

DMG Headers (Artifact, Disease, Trap and Hazard, and Poison)

    * RGB: R 99, G 53, B 67
    * HSL: H 228, S 73, L 72
    * Hex Code: #633543
    * CMYK: C 0.000, M 0.465, Y 0.323, K 0.612
    * Note: The SRD uses the same red as the Power (Encounter) header, while the actual DMG uses maroon. 

Monster

    * RGB: R 78, G 92, B 46
    * HSL: H 52, S 80, L 65
    * Hex Code: #4E5C2E
    * CMYK: C 0.152, M 0.000, Y 0.500, K 0.639 

PHB Table Header

    * RGB: R 18, G 50, B 74
    * HSL: H 137, S 146, L 43
    * Hex Code: #12324a
    * CMYK: C 0.757, M 0.324, Y 0.000, K 0.710 

Table Entry (Dark)

    * RGB: R 206, G 205, B 181
    * HSL: H 38, S 49, L 182
    * Hex Code: #cecdb5
    * CMYK: C 0.000, M 0.005, Y 0.121, K 0.192 

Table Entry (Light)

    * RGB: R 242, G 242, B 235
    * HSL: H 40, S 51, L 224
    * Hex Code: #f2f2eb
    * CMYK: C 0.000, M 0.000, Y 0.029, K 0.051


----------



## Marius Delphus (Sep 5, 2008)

Screen-sampled from the official Monster Manual zombie preview pages:


Light bands: R231 G228 B208
Dark bands: R198 G198 B174
Header band: R68 B81 G42


----------

