Martin L. Shoemaker wrote:
These are classes from the Psionics Handbook and contained in the SRD
(or the draft)? (Psionics don't intereset me, so I don't own the
handbook.) If so, then the alterations most likely derive from the
original, and cannot be PI.
They're most likely the classes from the Psionics Handbook.
A brand new class entirely? That's a tough one. I can IMAGINE that thereI'd think it'd be much more likely for a prestige class, or a core class that should be prestige. Jedi are a great example of this.
is SOME way to create a class that does not in any way build on or
incorporate or modify existing rules; but I cannot imagine what it would
look like, what good it would be, or why anyone would bother. Most
likely
But even then, some of the description would have to be open--the traditional chart and the list of skills, if nothing else.
A moral line? Hmmm, that's tougher. I have a long-standing position thatBest to leave the moral argument out of it and stick to the pragmatic line:
I won't contradict now (nor debate, so don't even bother trying to
engage me): it's not true that "open == moral" and "closed == immoral".
Some open extremists will argue that, and I think that muddies the
waters quite a bit. So it's not for me to be judging morals here. But
this might be a tad on the selfish side, if he's stingy with that
private license. Wizards has shared with him a whole system, and in
return he can't share those things based on the work Wizards shared?
"If you leave as much open as you can, you let your fans support your product and thus harness the network effect to sell more copies of your book."
DM
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
