At 09:14 PM 4/24/2002, Reginald Cablayan wrote:
>Is it possible for publishers to produce a RPG product that features no
>class without infringing on the copyright of Wizards' CoC rulebook?
Fairly easily. Just create a single class, which has, as its class
attributes, the choice of different class skills, etc.
Actually, this would be a way to implement a 'pseudo-leveless' system
without, I feel, infringing on the STL.
Adventurer
Class Features
Hit Dice:D8
Skill Points 4+Int Bonus/level
Level BAB Saves Features
1 +0 +0/+0/+0 Pick two Adventurer Options
2 +0 +0/+0/+0 Pick two Adventurer Options.
Etc..
Adventurer Options
+1 BAB
+1 to a Save
+1 to a Caster Level
+2 Skill Points
Etc...
So, you'd still gain levels in a class -- there would just be only one
class in the game.("The only class available in LizardWorld is the
'Adventurer'. All the races from the core rules are available.") The game
would not describe HOW you gain levels, or that you use experience to 'add
a level to an existing class'. The 'Adventurer' class contains no mechanics
which do not exist in the SRD -- many classes can select from a set of
optional class abilities when they go up a level. The various 'standard
progressions' for BAB, saves, etc are not core requirements of the SRD.
The net mechanical benefit I was aiming for (a freeform 'class' which can
be built, level by level, to suit the player's whim, including total
incompetence in combat if they wish) remains, WITHOUT, I sincerely feel,
describing the effects of experience.
(If this is still too close -- and I honestly do not think it is, though I
will welcome explanations to the contrary -- I'll just drop it.)
I wish to emphasize, once again, that I am not interested in 'bear
baiting', or in dancing around the lines of the STL and daring WOTC to come
and stop me. One purpose for a list such as this is to discuss where the
boundaries lie, so that they will not be crossed. If the mechanics of a
properly-licensed D20 product can be made broader and more flexible than
the traditional class/level system, there is a continued benefit to both
the D20 developer community AND to WOTC -- the more things you can do with
D20, the bigger the network grows. Anytime you can knock down barriers to
adoption due to *perceived* mechanical limitations, the better for all.
If is a general consensus that discussing possible mechanics and how they
would fit, if at all, within the terms of the STL is even potentially
harmful to the D20 community, which I consider myself a member of, I will
cease to ask these questions. I have no interest in causing a rift between
the community and WOTC, or in being an annoying git. (I grant I am often
the latter, but I try to only do it deliberately...)
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
