Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kingpaul" data-source="post: 3443811" data-attributes="member: 1477">First, IANAL. If you want legal advice, please consult an attorney.I think you mean OGL or d20 STL. The SRD is a document containing OGC, the other two are licenses that you can publish under.You can change the names of classes if you wish. However, my suggestion is that, if you're going to keep all the mechanics the same of the Wizard, keep the name. Your audience will know what a Wizard is.I haven't seen any rules for class design.Try Monte Cook or Sean Reynolds. I think they've had some &quot;how-to&quot;, but I'm not sure.The term &quot;<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/artificer" target="_blank">aritificer</a>&quot; has been around for quite some time. As long as your Artificer class (and I believe there have been other 3rd parties to create a class called an Artificer) doesn't resemble anything like the closed-content one, you should be fine.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kingpaul, post: 3443811, member: 1477"] First, IANAL. If you want legal advice, please consult an attorney. I think you mean OGL or d20 STL. The SRD is a document containing OGC, the other two are licenses that you can publish under. You can change the names of classes if you wish. However, my suggestion is that, if you're going to keep all the mechanics the same of the Wizard, keep the name. Your audience will know what a Wizard is. I haven't seen any rules for class design. Try Monte Cook or Sean Reynolds. I think they've had some "how-to", but I'm not sure. The term "[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/artificer]aritificer[/url]" has been around for quite some time. As long as your Artificer class (and I believe there have been other 3rd parties to create a class called an Artificer) doesn't resemble anything like the closed-content one, you should be fine. [/QUOTE]

Verification