Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="smetzger" data-source="post: 458680" data-attributes="member: 1230">It may be bordering on scripting; especially the way that I presented it.&nbsp; To be more precise you would have a table with a Key and a value and then the code would construct the logical statement by combining Keys and Values.&nbsp; It gets a little more complex than that when you consider some weirder rules and 'Ors', but that is the basic idea.&nbsp; I have currently done Feat prereqs that way and it is working out quite well so far.PCGen uses &quot;Keys&quot; or &quot;Tags&quot; in their .lst file and this is how they are designating OGC (everything in the .lst is OGC while the actual program is PI).&nbsp; Until I hear differently from WOTC I am assuming that they use of &quot;Keys&quot; in the database that represent the rules is a viable way of complying with the d20 license.&nbsp; I agree that this is shaky ground, but if WOTC says its Ok then its Ok.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="smetzger, post: 458680, member: 1230"] It may be bordering on scripting; especially the way that I presented it. To be more precise you would have a table with a Key and a value and then the code would construct the logical statement by combining Keys and Values. It gets a little more complex than that when you consider some weirder rules and 'Ors', but that is the basic idea. I have currently done Feat prereqs that way and it is working out quite well so far. PCGen uses "Keys" or "Tags" in their .lst file and this is how they are designating OGC (everything in the .lst is OGC while the actual program is PI). Until I hear differently from WOTC I am assuming that they use of "Keys" in the database that represent the rules is a viable way of complying with the d20 license. I agree that this is shaky ground, but if WOTC says its Ok then its Ok. [/QUOTE]

Verification